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 moreJute mills, including the appellant, manufactured jute bags for the Food Corporation of India, state governments, and other agencies for packing food grains distributed through the Public Distribution System. Excise authorities demanded duty on these bags for a two-year window (2011-2013), arguing that printing the buyer's name, logo, and other identifying marks on the bags (as legally required by the Jute Commissioner's orders) made them "branded goods," which lost their excise exemption. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) had upheld this view, relying on an earlier Supreme Court decision (Kohinoor Elastics), leading the jute mills to appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the markings required on the jute bags, the procuring agency's name, crop year, mill name, and BIS certification, were placed there purely by legal compulsion under the Jute Control Order and requisition orders for identification and monitoring by government agencies, not to indicate any trade connection between the product and a person in the way a genuine "brand name" does. It distinguished Kohinoor Elastics on facts, since there the brand name was affixed to benefit the customer commercially, which was not the case here. The Court also held that a binding Ministry of Finance circular clarifying that such institutional markings do not create a "brand name" could not be brushed aside by CESTAT. Accordingly, the Court allowed all the connected appeals and set aside the CESTAT's judgment, ruling that the jute bags were not "branded goods" and so remained exempt from excise duty.
Printing a buyer's or regulator's name on goods purely to comply with a legal/regulatory requirement (for tracking or identification) does not, by itself, turn those goods into "branded" products for tax purposes: a true brand name requires an intended trade connection benefiting the user of the mark, not mere compliance markings.
