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 morePrasar Bharati's Doordarshan Kendra in Trivandrum entered into agreements with advertising agencies under which it paid them a 15% commission for canvassing television advertisements, with the agencies required to remit back any applicable TDS amount. The Income Tax Department held that this 15% payment was "commission" under Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, requiring Doordarshan to deduct tax at source, and the Assessing Officer and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this view, though the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal initially sided with Doordarshan. The Kerala High Court reversed the Tribunal and ruled in favour of the tax department, prompting Prasar Bharati's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined the actual agreement between Doordarshan and its advertising agencies and found it unmistakably established a principal-agent relationship, with the agency acting on Doordarshan's behalf and the 15% retained amount constituting "commission" within the meaning of Section 194H's Explanation, regardless of whether it was labelled a discount. The Court distinguished a contrary Allahabad High Court ruling (relied on by the appellant) on the basis that the facts there lacked any comparable written agency agreement. Agreeing with the Kerala High Court's reasoning, the Supreme Court held Doordarshan was liable to deduct tax at source on these payments and found no merit in the appeals, dismissing them.
Whether a payment attracts TDS as "commission" depends on the real substance of the contractual relationship: if an agreement establishes a genuine principal-agent arrangement, the tax obligation under Section 194H applies even if the payment is informally called something else, like a "discount."
