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 moreFor assessment year 1984-85, the assessee-firm had claimed three deductions: service charges paid to a related firm (Universal Trading Company), a loss from its film business, and a donation to Aparna Ashram. The Assessing Officer and the first appellate authority disallowed all three, but the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled in the assessee's favour on all counts. The Karnataka High Court, on a reference under Section 256(2), reversed the ITAT and ruled against the assessee on all three questions, leading to this appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view on each issue. On the service charges, it found the assessee had never produced proof that services were actually rendered by the related firm during the relevant year, a point the ITAT had overlooked. On the film-business loss, the High Court was entitled to disagree with the ITAT's reliance on a related, factually similar case where the Tribunal's reasoning was itself found untenable. On the Aparna Ashram donation, the assessee admittedly never produced the statutory compliance certificate required for the deduction under Section 35(2A). The Court clarified that the High Court had not overstepped its reference jurisdiction by re-finding facts: it had only given proper weight to undisputed facts already on record that the Tribunal had not adequately addressed, which is within a High Court's power even on reference. The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
A High Court hearing an income-tax reference can correct a Tribunal's conclusion if the Tribunal ignored undisputed facts already on record, even though the High Court cannot otherwise re-find new facts, so taxpayers must ensure all documentary proof for a claimed deduction is actually placed on record at the assessment stage itself.
