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 moreCalcutta Club, an incorporated members' club, supplied food and drinks to its own permanent members. The sales tax authorities sought to tax these supplies as "deemed sales," but the Club argued that under the long-standing "doctrine of mutuality," a club cannot sell to itself, since the members collectively own the club, there is no separate buyer and seller, and the Club is only acting as the members' agent. The West Bengal Taxation Tribunal and the Calcutta High Court both ruled in the Club's favour, and the matter eventually reached a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court via a reference, bundled together with dozens of similar club taxation disputes from across the country (including the Ranchi Club service-tax matter) because they all turned on the same core legal question.
The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of mutuality continues to apply to both incorporated and unincorporated members' clubs even after the Constitution's 46th Amendment (which added Article 366(29-A) to widen the definition of "sale" for tax purposes), and that earlier precedents recognising mutuality, such as Young Men's Indian Association, remain good law. It found that sub-clause (f) of Article 366(29-A), which some argued had been designed to specifically override mutuality for clubs, simply does not apply to members' clubs at all, since the language and legislative mechanism needed to override mutuality (comparable to deeming provisions used elsewhere in tax law) was conspicuously absent. On this basis, the Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal and High Court's findings and dismissed the State's appeal (C.A. No. 4184 of 2009). In the connected matters, it similarly held that incorporated members' clubs are not liable to service tax either, since a "body of persons" under the service tax law's post-2012 definition does not include a company, so the Revenue's appeals on that issue were also dismissed and related show-cause/demand notices were declared void.
When members of a club supply goods or services only to each other through the club as a collective body (not to outsiders), this is not treated as a "sale" or taxable "service" because there is no separate buyer and seller in law: the doctrine of mutuality shields such internal, non-commercial transactions from both sales tax and service tax, regardless of whether the club is incorporated.
