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 moreCivil Appeal No. 10577 of 2018 was one of a batch of connected appeals filed by the Income Tax Revenue authorities against Urban Improvement Trust, Kota (a statutory body under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959), all raising the same common question. The Trust had claimed its income was exempt from tax as that of a "local authority"/"Municipal Committee" under the Explanation to Section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2002. The Rajasthan High Court had ruled in the Trust's favour, holding its statutory urban-development functions brought it within that exemption, and the Revenue appealed this finding to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the 2002 amendment to Section 10(20) had deliberately narrowed and defined the term "Municipal Committee" for exemption purposes, and that merely performing statutory urban-development functions for the State did not automatically bring a body like the Urban Improvement Trust within that narrower definition. The Court found the High Court's reasoning, that the Trust's functions were "sovereign" and for the State's benefit, did not engage with the specific statutory language of the Explanation and was legally erroneous. Relying on its own earlier precedent interpreting the same Explanation, the Court set aside the High Court's judgments as unsustainable, allowed all the connected appeals (including this one), and restored the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal that had originally ruled against the exemption claim, with parties bearing their own costs.
Statutory tax exemptions for government-linked bodies are construed strictly according to the precise definition Parliament has written into the law, not by a broader, purpose-based reading of what functions the body performs for the State: a body can be fully a creature of statute carrying out public functions and still fall outside a narrowly worded tax exemption.
