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 moreSharp Business System, a joint venture of Sharp Corporation (Japan) and Larsen & Toubro (L&T), paid Rs. 3 crore to L&T during assessment year 2001-02 as consideration for L&T agreeing not to compete with it in the electronic office products business, in exchange for access to L&T's countrywide sales network. The tax authorities and the Delhi High Court treated this as capital expenditure (not deductible as a normal business expense), against which the assessee appealed to the Supreme Court. This appeal was heard together with three other unrelated income-tax appeals raising a related but distinct question (whether interest paid on funds borrowed by a company and invested in, or advanced to, a sister/subsidiary concern is deductible as business expenditure) arising from separate disputes involving Pentasoft Technologies and Piramal Glass.
The Supreme Court held that the non-compete fee paid by Sharp Business System to L&T was an allowable revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, not a capital expenditure, because it did not create any enduring capital asset or new profit-earning apparatus. It merely protected the assessee's existing business from competition for a period. The Delhi High Court's judgment was set aside and the question answered in the assessee's favour, allowing Sharp Business System's own appeal (Civil Appeal No. 4072/2014) outright, and rendering the alternative depreciation question moot. On the separate interest-deduction question (raised in the Piramal Glass matter), the Court reaffirmed the "commercial expediency" principle from its earlier decision in S.A. Builders Ltd. : tax authorities must assess such expenditure from the perspective of a prudent businessman, not with hindsight about whether profit was maximized, and interest on funds advanced to a subsidiary for acquiring a controlling interest for business purposes is ordinarily deductible. The remaining connected appeals were remanded to the respective Income Tax Appellate Tribunals to be reheard applying the principles laid down in this judgment.
A payment made to protect an existing business from competition (a non-compete fee) is normally a deductible running cost of the business, not a capital investment, and more broadly, when a company borrows money and invests it in a subsidiary for genuine commercial/business reasons (such as acquiring a controlling interest), interest on that borrowing should ordinarily be allowed as a business deduction, judged from a prudent businessman's viewpoint rather than the tax department's.
