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 moreSuzuki Powertrain India Limited (SPIL) had amalgamated into Maruti Suzuki India Limited (MSIL) under a court-approved scheme, after which SPIL ceased to legally exist. Despite the assessing officer being informed of this amalgamation, the tax department issued an assessment notice and order for Assessment Year 2012-13 in the name of the now-defunct SPIL rather than its successor MSIL. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held the assessment a nullity, and the Delhi High Court upheld this, relying on its own earlier ruling for an identical issue concerning Assessment Year 2011-12 involving the very same parties, against which the Revenue's Special Leave Petition had already been dismissed by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that jurisdiction to make an assessment cannot be validly founded against a company that has legally ceased to exist following an approved amalgamation, and that this defect is not a mere procedural irregularity curable by participation in proceedings: it goes to the very root of jurisdiction, so there can be no estoppel against this settled legal position. The Court noted that an identical question for the same assessee's prior assessment year (2011-12) had already been conclusively decided against the Revenue by a coordinate bench following its earlier ruling in Spice Enfotainment, and emphasized that consistency and certainty in tax litigation required following that same view here rather than permitting a different outcome for a different assessment year on the same facts. Finding no merit in the Revenue's appeal, the Court dismissed it with no order as to costs.
A tax assessment order issued against a company that has already merged into another entity under an approved amalgamation scheme is void for lack of jurisdiction, not merely defective, once such a legal position is settled for one assessment year, courts will apply it consistently to later years of the same taxpayer to preserve certainty in the tax system.
