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 moreA pig-iron manufacturer was found to have paid its excise duty late on a few occasions, so the authorities suspended its normal fortnightly payment facility and required it to pay duty consignment-by-consignment for two months. During that period the company paid most of its dues in cash but used about Rs. 31 lakhs of credit from its Cenvat account; the tax authorities said this was not allowed during the suspended period and demanded interest at 24% per annum for the delay this caused.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Courts' view (which the Excise Department itself had already accepted in other cases) that, under the rules as they stood at the relevant time, nothing barred an assessee from using Cenvat credit to pay duty even during a period when the fortnightly payment facility was suspended. The Court noted that the rule-making authority itself recognized this gap and amended the rules in 2005 to specifically require payment by cash/current account during such a suspended period going forward, confirming that no such restriction existed before the amendment. Since the law at the relevant time permitted payment via Cenvat credit, the duty was not actually paid late, and no interest was properly chargeable; the Court allowed the appeals and set aside the CESTAT's decision.
Tax rules cannot be applied retroactively as if a later clarifying amendment always existed: if the law in force at the time of the transaction permitted a particular mode of payment, a taxpayer cannot be penalized for using it, even if the rules are tightened afterward.
