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 moreSkill Lotto Solutions, an authorised distributor of lotteries organised by the State of Punjab, filed a writ petition directly in the Supreme Court challenging the definition of "goods" under Section 2(52) of the CGST Act, 2017 and the notifications that levy GST on lottery tickets. The company argued that taxing lotteries (treated as "actionable claims") was discriminatory and violated its constitutional rights to trade and against unfair taxation under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 301 and 304. It also argued that including the prize money in the taxable value of a lottery ticket was improper.
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the levy of GST on lotteries. The Court held that lottery is an "actionable claim" and Parliament validly included actionable claims within the definition of "goods" for GST purposes: this did not amount to unconstitutional discrimination since lotteries, betting and gambling form a distinct class that can be treated differently from other goods. The Court also rejected the argument that prize money should be excluded while computing the taxable value of a lottery ticket, holding that the statutory scheme under Section 15 of the CGST Act does not permit such an exclusion. However, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to separately challenge, in appropriate proceedings, later notifications that equalised the GST rate on state-run and state-authorised lotteries at 28%, since those had not been challenged in this petition.
Lottery tickets and similar actionable claims can be validly taxed as "goods" under GST law, and businesses dealing in regulated activities like lotteries cannot claim exemption from taxation merely by arguing discriminatory treatment compared to ordinary goods.
