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 morePride Foramer S.A., a French company engaged in offshore oil drilling, held a 10-year drilling contract with ONGC from 1983 to 1993 and was awarded a fresh contract in 1998-99. In the intervening assessment years (1996-97, 1997-98, 1999-2000), it had no active drilling contract but continued business correspondence with ONGC from its Dubai and France offices and submitted a bid for oil exploration in 1996, incurring administrative and audit expenses. It filed "NIL" income returns except for interest earned on income-tax refunds, and claimed deductions for its business expenditure and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation. The Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals) disallowed these, holding the company was not "carrying on business" in India during that period; the High Court of Uttarakhand upheld this disallowance, reversing the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had ruled in the company's favour.
The Supreme Court allowed the company's appeals, holding that a non-resident company need not have a "permanent establishment" in India to be taxed on income deemed to accrue or arise in India under Sections 4, 5(2) and 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act: the "permanent establishment" concept is relevant only for claiming benefits under a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, not for determining whether a business connection exists for domestic tax purposes. The Court held that carrying on business correspondence with an Indian entity (ONGC) from a foreign office, even without an active contract, could still amount to carrying on business in India, and criticised the High Court's contrary, restrictive interpretation as out of step with India's commitment to ease of doing business in a globalised economy. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, revived the ITAT's orders in the company's favour, and directed the Assessing Officer to pass fresh assessment orders accordingly.
For tax purposes, a foreign company does not need a physical "permanent establishment" in India to be treated as carrying on business here, ongoing business correspondence and dealings with an Indian counterpart can be enough to claim legitimate business-expense deductions, even during a lull between formal contracts.
