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 two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court had doubted the correctness of two earlier two-judge decisions (CCE v. SKF India Ltd. and CCE v. International Auto Ltd.) and referred the question to this three-judge Bench for resolution. Steel Authority of India (SAIL), the lead case, had sold rail products to Indian Railways at a price later revised upward with retrospective effect under an escalation clause, and paid the resulting differential excise duty of about Rs. 142 crores; the excise department then demanded interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on that differential duty, which SAIL contested. The core legal question was whether interest runs from the date of the original (provisional) removal of goods or only from when the price escalation was later finalized.
The Supreme Court held that interest under Section 11AB is payable from the date the duty "ought to have been paid" at the time of removal of goods, even where the final differential duty only crystallizes later because of a retrospective price escalation clause that was within the assessee's knowledge all along. It reasoned that the provisionally fixed price at the time of removal, once finally revised retrospectively, is treated as the price "at the time of removal" for interest purposes, and that reading Section 11AB otherwise would do violence to the plain words of the Act and Rules. The Court concurred with and reaffirmed the correctness of the SKF India and International Auto Ltd. decisions, resolving the doubt that had prompted the reference, and dismissed the entire batch of appeals (including SAIL's).
Where a sale price is contractually variable (e.g., subject to a later price-escalation clause) and is later revised retrospectively, a business cannot escape interest on the resulting shortfall in excise duty by arguing the shortfall only became known later: the law treats interest as running from the original date of removal of goods.
