Real judgements, distilled
Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreArmour Security, a security-services company, received a show cause notice from the Delhi State GST authority in November 2024 over alleged tax discrepancies. In January 2025, a separate Central GST wing searched its premises and issued summons under Section 70 over what the company said was the same subject matter: improper input tax credit claims. The company argued the Central summons were barred by Section 6(2)(b), which prevents both Central and State GST authorities from proceeding on the "same subject matter." The Delhi High Court rejected this argument and dismissed the company's writ petition.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that mere issuance of summons, or a search/seizure, does not amount to "initiation of proceedings" under Section 6(2)(b): that bar applies only once a formal adjudicatory step, such as a show cause notice, is issued. It clarified that intelligence-based enforcement action can be taken by either Central or State authorities regardless of which one the taxpayer is administratively assigned to, but a second authority cannot start truly parallel proceedings once one has already initiated intelligence-based action on the identical liability. To reduce confusion in future cases, the Court laid out a detailed set of guidelines for how taxpayers and tax authorities should handle overlapping GST inquiries, including a duty on taxpayers to promptly flag any overlap in writing.
Receiving a GST summons or having your premises searched does not by itself trigger the legal bar on "double jeopardy" style tax proceedings: that protection only kicks in once a formal notice like a show cause notice is issued on an identical tax liability; until then, taxpayers must still cooperate with summons from either the Central or State authority.
