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 moreTarachand Logistic Solutions, a company providing heavy-lifting equipment, was awarded a contract to handle iron and steel material inside the closed, CISF-guarded central dispatch yard of the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant (a Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited unit). Its 36 registered motor vehicles never left this fenced, access-controlled premises to ply on public roads. Despite this, the state transport authorities demanded and collected over Rs. 22.7 lakh in motor vehicle tax, treating the vehicles as taxable under the state's Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. The company paid under protest, sought a refund and exemption, was refused at every level (transport officer, appellate authority, and the Andhra Pradesh High Court's Division Bench), and appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that motor vehicle tax under Section 3 of the A.P. Act, 1963 is chargeable only when a vehicle is "used or kept for use in a public place." Since the RINL dispatch yard was a closed, guarded premises with no public access, the vehicles confined there were not being used in a "public place," regardless of RINL being a government company. The Court clarified that Rule 12A (which deems a vehicle "kept for use" unless non-use is intimated) cannot expand the scope of the parent taxing provision, and must be read consistently with Section 3's "public place" requirement. It set aside the High Court Division Bench's judgment and restored the Single Judge's order in the company's favour, allowing the appeal with no order as to costs.
A vehicle tax law that taxes use "in a public place" cannot be stretched to cover vehicles confined entirely within a private, access-restricted industrial premises: subordinate rules cannot override or expand what the parent statute actually taxes.
