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 moreThe appellants' tax revision petitions before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, filed under Section 48 of the Himachal Pradesh VAT Act, 2005, were rejected as time-barred because they were filed after the Act's 90-day limit. The High Court held that Section 48 implicitly excluded Section 5 of the Limitation Act (which lets courts condone delay for "sufficient cause"), relying on a similar ruling about Assam's VAT law. The appellants argued that, unlike the Assam Act, the Himachal Pradesh Act contained no such express or implied exclusion, so delay should be condonable.
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed review of precedent on when a special law's limitation period excludes the general "condonation of delay" provision (Section 5) of the Limitation Act, 1963. It found that unlike the Assam VAT Act (which expressly applied only Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act, impliedly excluding Section 5) or the Central Excise Act (a "complete code" with its own graduated condonation scheme), the Himachal Pradesh VAT Act's scheme, including a provision in Section 45(4) allowing condonation of delay for ordinary appeals and a five-year suo motu revisional power, showed no legislative intent to oust Section 5. The Court therefore held Section 5 of the Limitation Act applicable to revisions under Section 48, condoned the delay in the present cases, set aside the High Court's orders, and sent the matters back to the High Court to be decided on their merits.
Whether a taxpayer (or the tax department) can get a delay in filing a court revision/appeal excused depends entirely on the specific wording and overall scheme of that tax statute: courts look for genuine, even if unstated, legislative intent to shut out the general delay-condonation rule rather than assuming every strict-sounding deadline is absolute.
