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 moreTata Steel had set up a cold-rolling-mill unit at Jamshedpur (then in Bihar, later Jharkhand) relying on an industrial policy promising an eight-year sales tax exemption, investing roughly Rs. 2000 crore on the strength of that assurance. After the exemption certificate was granted, Jharkhand's tax authorities later tried to withdraw the benefit by treating the cold-rolled product as the same commodity as the existing hot-rolled product (which would have disqualified it), a position the Supreme Court had already rejected in an earlier round of litigation between the same parties (Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand). This case arose after the State's 2006 VAT law transitioned Tata Steel from tax "exemption" to tax "deferment," leading to a fresh dispute over how long the deferred tax repayment period should run and whether interest/penalty could be charged on it.
The Supreme Court interpreted the transitional provisions of the Jharkhand VAT Act and Rules governing conversion from exemption to deferment, holding that reading the notification as a whole, the repayment schedule for the deferred tax had to end on 31.08.2013, five years from the expiry of the original eligibility period, rejecting the company's alternative, more favourable reading of "from the date of start of deferment" as leading to an absurd result that would render other parts of the scheme meaningless. On the question of interest and penalty, the Court held that the standard penalty provision should not be mechanically applied given the special facts of the case, but directed Tata Steel to pay interest at 12% per annum (rather than the 2.5% per month sought by the State) on the deferred amount, to be deposited with the tax authority within three months. The appeal was accordingly disposed of in these terms with no order as to costs.
When legislation changes the form of a tax benefit (here, from "exemption" to "deferment"), courts will interpret the transitional notification holistically to avoid an absurd result, and will calibrate interest/penalty to the real facts of the case rather than applying boilerplate statutory rates mechanically.
