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 moreElectro Optics imported and sold electronic survey instruments and claimed they should be taxed at the lower 3% rate applicable to general "electronic goods" under Entry 50, Part B of Schedule I of the Act, rather than the 16% rate the tax authorities applied under Entry 14, Part F, which specifically covers "survey instruments" (among binoculars, telescopes, etc.). The Commercial Tax Officer, the Appellate Commissioner, the Tribunal and finally the Madras High Court all rejected the company's classification and upheld the 16% levy along with a penalty for two assessment years (1993-94 and 1994-95), bringing the company to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that Entry 50's residuary "electronic goods" category only covers electronic items "not specified elsewhere in the Schedule," and since "survey instruments" are specifically and deliberately listed in Entry 14 without any carve-out excluding their electronic variety (unlike neighbouring entries 10-13, which expressly exclude electronic versions of other machines), even electronic survey instruments fall under Entry 14 at 16%. It therefore dismissed the appeals challenging the tax assessment itself. However, on the separate question of penalty, the Court found the company had a bona fide, genuinely arguable belief (reinforced by a major 1993 Schedule rewrite that created real classification confusion) that its goods attracted only 3% tax, and following the principle that mens rea/deliberate defiance is required before penalty is justified, it set aside the balance unpaid penalty, while declining to refund the portion already paid, treating it as a contribution toward the cost of the prolonged litigation.
A taxpayer can lose on the substantive tax-classification dispute yet still escape penalty if its incorrect position was a genuine, good-faith interpretation of an ambiguous or recently amended law, rather than a deliberate or dishonest attempt to evade tax.
