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 manufacturer, charged its customers the price of goods plus an additional amount called "Dharmada": a traditional, voluntary charitable donation collected alongside the sale price and credited to charity. Excise authorities wanted to treat this Dharmada amount as part of the taxable sale price ("assessable value") and demanded extra excise duty on it. Tax tribunals had gone back and forth on the issue, with the Tribunal (CESTAT) ultimately ruling against the appellant by relying on an earlier Supreme Court decision (Panchmukhi Engineering), prompting this appeal. A connected appeal involving a different company (Commissioner of Central Excise vs. JSW Steel) raising the identical question was decided together.
The Supreme Court held that the earlier Panchmukhi decision, which the Tribunal had relied on, was not good law because it had been decided without proper argument and had wrongly applied a different precedent (Tata Iron & Steel) concerning a compulsory statutory surcharge: a fundamentally different kind of payment from a voluntary charitable donation. The Court held that Dharmada, being an optional payment made by the buyer and genuinely held in trust for charity (not retained as the seller's income), is not part of the "consideration" for the sale of goods and therefore cannot be included in the assessable value for excise duty purposes. It set aside the Tribunal's judgment and allowed the appeal; the connected JSW Steel appeal was dismissed in the Revenue's favour in light of this same ruling (i.e., Dharmada was held non-taxable there too).
A genuinely voluntary charitable collection added onto a sale price, where the money is actually credited to charity and not kept as business income, is not treated as part of the price for tax purposes; businesses can validly separate true charitable donations from taxable sale consideration as long as the funds are truly earmarked and used for charity.
