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 moreThis was a common judgment disposing of a large batch of appeals and transferred cases from traders/assessees in Punjab, Chandigarh and Andhra Pradesh. One group challenged a 2013 amendment to Section 29 of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005, which retrospectively extended the tax-assessment limitation period from three to six years, after courts had earlier struck down individual extension orders on technical service-of-notice grounds. Another group of cases turned on the Supreme Court's own earlier ruling in State of Punjab v. Nokia India (2014), which had held that mobile phone chargers sold along with mobile phones are taxable separately at a higher VAT rate than the phone itself; some assessees sought to avoid or distinguish Nokia relying on later High Court rulings in Samsung and Intex.
On the limitation issue, the Court upheld the constitutional validity of the retrospective amendment, relying on precedent (Jyoti Traders) that a legislature can validly extend an assessment limitation period even after the original period had already expired, and dismissed those appeals while preserving the assessees' liberty to pursue appellate remedies without a limitation objection being raised against them. On the Nokia/charger issue, rather than revisiting Nokia's correctness, the Court restricted its binding effect specifically to the Punjab and Chandigarh statutes for the relevant assessment years, directed the appellant-traders to pay only the principal amount of outstanding tax (without interest or penalty), and remitted the Andhra Pradesh-origin cases back to that State's High Court to be decided afresh on their own facts, clarifying Nokia is not automatically binding precedent for other States' differently worded tax laws.
Tax legislatures can retrospectively extend assessment limitation periods even after the original period has lapsed, provided the amendment is validly enacted; and a Supreme Court ruling interpreting one State's tax statute is not automatically a binding precedent for a different State's differently worded law: its reach can be expressly cabined by the Court itself.
