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 moreTata Motors and other vehicle manufacturers/dealers challenged demands for tax under Section 6 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1994, which taxes manufacturers and dealers simply for possessing vehicles (held under "trade certificates") before they are sold to customers. The appellants argued that the State Legislature lacked constitutional competence to tax mere "possession" of a vehicle, and that in any case they had already paid tax under Section 5 (on registered vehicles) or Section 7(4) (on temporarily registered vehicles), so an additional tax under Section 6 amounted to double taxation. A related batch of appeals also challenged penalties and interest imposed for delayed payment of this same tax.
The Supreme Court held that Entry 57 of List II of the Constitution (which allows states to tax vehicles "suitable for use on roads") was wide enough to support a tax on a manufacturer's or dealer's mere possession of such vehicles, so Section 6 was constitutionally valid: a conclusion already reached in an earlier, now-final ruling in the TELCO case. The Court explained that Sections 5, 6 and 7(4) tax different stages/categories (registered owner, manufacturer/dealer in possession, and temporarily registered vehicles respectively) and are not mutually exclusive, so paying tax under one section does not exempt a party from tax properly due under another. On penalties, since show-cause notices had been issued and the appellants heard before penalties were imposed (curing the earlier procedural defect identified in TELCO), the penalty orders were also upheld. All the appeals were accordingly dismissed.
Paying one type of tax on a vehicle does not automatically exempt a business from a separate tax that applies to a different stage or capacity (e.g., possession versus registered ownership): businesses should check each specific statutory provision rather than assume taxes are mutually exclusive, and procedural fairness (a show-cause notice) is usually enough to make a penalty valid even where the underlying tax liability is contested.
