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 moreSAIL, a public sector steel manufacturer importing graphite electrodes from China, challenged a government notification imposing anti-dumping duty on such imports. The Designated Authority had determined, after an investigation, that dumping margins ranged from 20% to 95% and that the domestic industry was suffering material injury. SAIL's challenge before the CESTAT (Tribunal), alleging improper determination of normal value and excessive confidentiality in the Authority's report, was rejected, and SAIL then filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act.
Before even admitting the appeal, the Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of the scope of its own appellate jurisdiction under Section 130E(b), tracing the legislative history of customs appeals. It held that such an appeal is admissible only where the question has a direct and proximate nexus to the rate of duty or value determination, involves a genuinely unresolved substantial question of law, and is not simply an invitation to re-weigh facts that the Tribunal reasonably found after a bona fide process. Applying these standards, the Court found that CESTAT's findings on dumping margin and injury were factual conclusions properly reached on the material before it, leaving no substantial legal question for the Supreme Court to decide. The appeal was accordingly dismissed by refusing admission.
The Supreme Court's special statutory appellate jurisdiction in tax and customs matters is deliberately narrow: it is not a forum to re-litigate factual findings that a specialised tribunal has reasonably arrived at; an appellant must show a genuine, unresolved question of law, not mere disagreement with the outcome.
