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 moreGeorge Varghese, sole proprietor of Kerala Tyre and Rubber Company, was issued a show-cause notice in 1987 alleging he had clandestinely manufactured and cleared tread rubber without paying over Rs. 74 lakh in excise duty. He died in 1989, before the proceedings concluded, and the excise authorities then issued a fresh notice to his wife and daughters demanding the same duty from them as his legal heirs. The heirs argued they had no connection to the business, could not locate its records, and that the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 contained no provision allowing an assessment to continue against a dead person's estate. A single judge of the Kerala High Court agreed and quashed the proceedings, but a Division Bench of the same High Court reversed that ruling on appeal by the Revenue, prompting the heirs to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that, unlike the Income Tax Act (which contains an express "machinery provision" allowing assessments to continue against legal representatives of a deceased taxpayer), the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as it then stood, had no such provision: the Act defines "assessee" as "the person" liable to pay duty, and in the absence of specific statutory machinery, the right to assess and recover duty does not automatically survive against the heirs after the assessee's death. The Court firmly disapproved of the Kerala High Court's reasoning, which had relied on vague notions of "unjust enrichment" and morality rather than any actual statutory provision, reiterating the settled principle that taxing statutes must be construed strictly by their express words, with no room for equitable or moral reasoning to fill a legislative gap. Applying these first principles of tax-statute interpretation, the Court held that since Parliament had not provided machinery to continue excise proceedings against a deceased person's legal heirs, the demand against the heirs could not be sustained. The appeal was allowed, the Division Bench's judgment was set aside, and the single judge's original order quashing the proceedings was restored.
Tax authorities cannot recover unpaid dues from a deceased person's family or estate unless the specific tax law itself contains a clear provision allowing that: courts will not stretch a tax statute using fairness or "unjust enrichment" arguments when the legislature has simply not written in a mechanism to tax the dead.
