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 moreJupiter Capital, an investment company, held a 99.88% stake in Asianet News Network Pvt. Ltd. When Asianet's finances weakened, the Bombay High Court approved a reduction of Asianet's share capital, cutting Jupiter's shareholding from over 15.33 crore shares to just 9,988 shares (with the face value per share unchanged) and paying Jupiter about Rs. 3.17 crore as consideration. Jupiter claimed this reduction as a long-term capital loss in its tax return, but the Assessing Officer disallowed it, arguing that since the face value and shareholding percentage stayed the same, there was no real "transfer" of any asset. The ITAT and the Karnataka High Court both ruled in Jupiter's favour, prompting the tax department to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's petition, holding that a reduction in the number of shares held, even without a change in face value or shareholding percentage, amounts to an "extinguishment of rights" and therefore a "transfer" under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Relying on its earlier decisions in Kartikeya V. Sarabhai and Anarkali Sarabhai, the Court explained that when the number of shares a shareholder holds is reduced, that shareholder's proportionate rights to dividends and to a share of the company's assets on liquidation are extinguished to that extent, which is enough to trigger capital gains/loss treatment even if no shares were formally "sold." The Court found no error of law in the High Court's judgment affirming the ITAT's view.
A reduction in a company's share capital that shrinks a shareholder's number of shares can count as a taxable "transfer" for capital gains purposes, even if the face value of the shares and the shareholder's percentage ownership remain unchanged: what matters is whether some part of the shareholder's rights has been extinguished.
