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 moreA Karnataka-based civil contractor sought an advance tax ruling on what rate of sales tax applied to building materials used in its works contracts before 1 April 2006, the date a specific tax provision (Section 4(1)(c)) was added to the Karnataka VAT Act. The tax authority later reversed the earlier favourable ruling, prompting the contractor to appeal to the Karnataka High Court, which ruled in the contractor's favour. The State of Karnataka then appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, along with a batch of connected appeals on the same issue.
The Supreme Court held that even before the 2006 amendment, works contracts were taxable sales under the KVAT Act's general definitions of "sale" and "goods," but the Act did not, before 1 April 2006, prescribe any uniform rate of tax for all goods used in a works contract. The Court rejected the State's argument that the residual provision (Section 4(1)(b), taxing "other goods" at 12.5%) was meant to serve as that uniform rate, holding that a residual entry can only apply to goods not otherwise specifically covered, and could not be stretched to swallow the specific schedule entries. It was only the 2006 amendment inserting Section 4(1)(c) that introduced a genuine uniform rate regime for works contracts. The Court therefore upheld the High Court's ruling and dismissed the State's appeal, along with the connected batch of appeals that turned on the same point.
Tax authorities cannot retroactively stretch a general "residual" tax category to cover a situation the legislature only specifically addressed in a later amendment: a change in law that creates a new uniform rate applies only from the date it takes effect, not before.
