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 moreUnder a 2005 national "White Paper" agreed among states' finance ministers, dealers were promised Input Tax Credit (ITC) set-off against tax on both intra-state and inter-state sales. However, Section 19(5)(c) of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006 and Rule 10(9)(a) of its Rules denied ITC on goods sold in inter-state trade unless the dealer produced a "Form C" declaration. The appellants (including TVS Motor Company), registered dealers under the Act, were issued show-cause notices around 2013 proposing to reverse ITC they had claimed because they had not filed Form C for certain inter-state sales, including sales made to other State Governments, who are not required to register as dealers and therefore cannot issue Form C at all. The appellants challenged Section 19(5)(c) and Rule 10(9)(a) as unconstitutional, but the Madras High Court upheld the provisions, leading to these appeals before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court upheld the general validity of Section 19(5)(c) and Rule 10(9)(a), rejecting the broader constitutional challenge to conditioning ITC on inter-state sales on production of Form C. However, it carved out one specific rider: where a dealer's sales were made exclusively to other State Governments, who are statutorily exempt from registration and therefore structurally incapable of ever issuing Form C, even though there is no genuine risk of tax evasion in such government-to-government-linked sales, denying ITC for want of Form C would fail the test of reasonable classification under Article 14. The Court therefore read down Section 19(5)(c) to deem such State Governments as registered dealers for ITC purposes in this limited context, provided the dealer obtains and submits a certificate from the purchasing State Government confirming the sale. On this basis, the Court allowed the one appeal (arising from S.L.P.(C) No. 9326 of 2015) that specifically involved sales to State Governments, to that limited extent, while dismissing all the other connected appeals (including the lead TVS Motor Company appeal) with costs.
A tax rule that conditions a benefit (like input tax credit) on producing a specific document can still be constitutionally valid in general, but courts will intervene narrowly where that documentary requirement is structurally impossible for a particular class of transactions to satisfy (here, sales to State Governments who cannot issue Form C) and there's no real risk the rule is meant to guard against.
