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 moreFollowing a tax-department search at the business premises of a rice mill partnership firm, the same Assessing Officer issued identical-day notices to both the firm and one of its partners (the appellant) to declare undisclosed income for a block assessment period. The firm's return was later accepted as showing nil undisclosed income, after which the Assessing Officer issued a second, fresh notice to the partner specifically under Section 158BD (which applies to "any other person" whose undisclosed income is found during someone else's search) and ultimately assessed him to a large undisclosed income. The partner challenged this second notice as invalid before the Tribunal and then the Calcutta High Court, both of which rejected his challenge, leading to this appeal.
The core question was whether the Assessing Officer, having already issued a first notice to the partner under Section 158BC on the same day as the firm's notice, could validly issue a second notice under Section 158BD after the firm's assessment was completed. The Supreme Court held that Section 158BD requires the Assessing Officer to first form a genuine, document-based satisfaction that undisclosed income belongs to a person other than the one actually searched, and since the first notice to the partner was issued on the very same day as the firm's notice, before the seized material could possibly have been examined, that first notice could not have reflected the satisfaction Section 158BD demands. The Assessing Officer was therefore right to treat the earlier notice as premature/non-compliant and to issue a proper, satisfaction-based second notice only after reviewing the firm's case; this reasoning also justified the earlier related order under Section 144A being set aside as flawed. Finding no infirmity in the High Court's approach, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
A tax notice issued to someone other than the person actually searched is valid only if the tax officer has genuinely examined the seized material first and formed a real, documented satisfaction that undisclosed income belongs to that other person: a notice fired off too hastily, before that examination, will not count, and a later, properly-grounded notice can validly take its place.
