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 moreSuraj Impex, a merchant exporter of Soyabean Meal, had been receiving a 1% All Industry Rate (AIR) customs duty drawback on its exports. From 2008 the customs department began withholding this drawback on the ground that exporters who had already claimed a central excise rebate could not also get the AIR drawback. A 2010 CBEC circular clarified that both benefits could be claimed together, but the department and the Madhya Pradesh High Court treated this circular as applying only prospectively from its date of issue, denying the company drawback for earlier years.
The Supreme Court held that the 2010 circular was merely clarificatory and declaratory in nature. It did not create any new right or impose any new burden, but simply explained what the earlier notifications (from 2006 onward) had always meant. Since it resolved an ambiguity rather than changing the law, it had to be given retrospective effect under settled principles of statutory interpretation. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and held the appellant entitled to the 1% AIR duty drawback from 2008 onward.
When a government circular merely clarifies an existing rule rather than creating a new one, it applies retrospectively: citizens and businesses should not be denied benefits for the period before such a clarifying circular was issued, since it only restates rights that already existed.
