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 moreRashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited, a central government public sector undertaking, procured Naphtha at a nil/concessional excise duty rate under exemption notifications meant for Naphtha "intended for use" in manufacturing fertilizer. Central Excise officers found that the company also used part of the Naphtha, along with natural gas, as fuel to generate steam in its steam-generation plant, and the revenue department issued show cause notices demanding over Rs. 28.5 crore in duty on the ground that this fuel-use fell outside the exemption's scope. The demand was confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the CESTAT, leading the company to appeal to the Supreme Court, along with a connected appeal against rejection of its rectification application.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the excise demand, holding that the steam generated using Naphtha was itself used within the chemical/fertilizer plant (and partly supplied to the state electricity board), so the Naphtha remained within the scope of "intended use" for fertilizer manufacture under the exemption notifications: the company was therefore entitled to the concessional rate. On the separate question of limitation, the Court held that the extended five-year limitation period could not be invoked because there was no deliberate suppression of facts by the company. It had disclosed all relevant particulars to the excise authorities, who had themselves issued CT-2 certificates permitting the exemption, and any dispute was purely one of interpreting the notification's language. The Court further found the situation to be one of "revenue neutrality," since as a public sector undertaking receiving government subsidy to maintain regulated prices, any excise duty the company might have paid would ultimately have been reimbursed by the Central Government anyway, removing any possible motive to evade duty.
Tax authorities cannot invoke the extended, longer limitation period for reopening duty demands unless there is deliberate, wilful suppression of facts: an honest interpretive dispute about a notification's scope, especially where full facts were disclosed and any resulting duty would be revenue-neutral, does not amount to suppression.
