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 moreA finance company ran collective investment schemes under which subscribers deposited money that was later repaid with interest, subject to clauses allowing forfeiture in certain circumstances. For assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87, the company had credited these subscription receipts to its profit and loss account as "income," and the tax authorities sought to tax them on that basis. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ruled in the company's favour, holding (based on an earlier Supreme Court judgment in the company's own case concerning an RBI circular) that such subscriptions were capital receipts, not income. The Calcutta High Court reversed this, holding the company was bound by how it had itself treated the amounts in its books, and that the earlier Supreme Court ruling did not establish an absolute rule. The company appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the true nature of a receipt for tax purposes is determined by its actual legal character, not merely by how it happens to be recorded in a company's own account books, relying on established precedent that bookkeeping entries are not decisive of whether a receipt is capital or revenue in nature. Since the subscription amounts in question were never actually forfeited during the relevant years (confirmed by an affidavit referencing a standing court order barring forfeiture), they remained repayable deposits and were therefore capital receipts, not income, consistent with the Court's earlier ruling in the company's own RBI-circular case. The Court held that the High Court had wrongly read down that earlier ruling and wrongly applied an estoppel against the company based on its own accounting treatment, since there can be no estoppel against a correct position in law. It set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the Tribunal's order allowing the company's appeal.
For tax purposes, how an amount is actually recorded in a company's books is not the final word: the real legal character of a receipt (such as a repayable deposit versus genuine income) governs, and a taxpayer is not stopped from correcting its own prior accounting treatment to reflect the true legal position.
