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 moreThe appellant, a composite textile mill, argued that yarn produced at an intermediate stage for its own further processing into fabric (captive consumption) should not attract excise duty, since it was not removed for sale. Relying on a Delhi High Court precedent, the appellant filed writ petitions before the Delhi High Court challenging excise circulars and notices, and during the pendency of those petitions obtained interim protection by voluntarily executing bonds (Form B-13) and continuing to file monthly RT-12 returns, which were endorsed as being on a "provisional assessment" basis. After the legal position on captive-consumption duty was later settled against the appellant's position, the question arose whether the earlier assessments could still be treated as "provisional," since no single formal order had explicitly declared them so.
The Supreme Court held that although no specific order formally designated the assessments as "provisional," the appellant had voluntarily submitted to the provisional assessment procedure under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules by executing bonds and filing endorsed returns in order to secure interim relief from the High Court, and could not now disown that very process to claim a limitation or procedural benefit. Invoking the principle that a party cannot "approbate and reprobate" (accept the benefit of a course of action while later denying its legal character), the Court held the appellant was bound by the consequences of the provisional assessment regime it had itself invited. Distinguishing the precedents cited by the appellant requiring a specific provisional-assessment order, the Court dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.
A party cannot take advantage of a legal process (such as executing bonds to get interim relief under a "provisional assessment" procedure) and later argue, when it becomes inconvenient, that the process never formally applied to them: the law does not allow a litigant to approbate and reprobate.
