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 moreMahindra and Mahindra Ltd. had entered into an agreement with the US-based Kaiser Jeep Corporation in 1964 to import plant, machinery and tooling equipment to expand its jeep product line, financed partly through a loan on which it paid 6% annual interest. When part of this loan liability was later waived/written off, the Income Tax Department (the Revenue) sought to tax the waived amount as income, first under Section 28(iv) and alternatively under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, but the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Bombay High Court ruled in the company's favour. This judgment disposed of the Revenue's lead appeal (Civil Appeal Nos. 6949-6950 of 2004) along with numerous other connected appeals raising the identical legal question.
The Supreme Court held that Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act did not apply because the waived amount was received in the nature of cash/money, not a benefit "in kind," which that provision requires. On Section 41(1), the Court held that the waiver related to capital assets (plant and machinery) and the company had never claimed a deduction for the interest paid under Section 36(1)(iii) in any earlier year, so there was no "trading liability" whose remission could be taxed, only a cessation of a non-trading liability, which falls outside Section 41(1)'s scope. Finding neither provision applicable, the Court held the Revenue's appeals were devoid of merit and dismissed them, along with disposing of all the connected appeals raising the same question, leaving parties to bear their own costs.
Waiver of a loan taken to acquire capital assets (like machinery) is not automatically taxable as income: tax authorities must show the waived liability was a "trading liability" for which a deduction was earlier claimed, or that the benefit was received in a form other than cash, before such provisions of the tax law can be invoked.
