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 moreThe tax department added about Rs. 2.89 crore to the respondent company's income, concluding that brokerage it charged its parent company (0.05%) was below the prevailing market rate. The company challenged this before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which set aside the addition on the ground that the Assessing Officer had failed to follow the Central Board of Direct Taxes' (CBDT) mandatory Instruction No. 3/2003, which required such pricing questions above a certain transaction value to be referred to a dedicated Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) rather than decided by the Assessing Officer alone. The Bombay High Court upheld the Tribunal's ruling, and the tax department appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court agreed that the CBDT's Instruction No. 3/2003 was mandatory, and that the Assessing Officer had breached it by not referring the international-transaction pricing question to the TPO before making the addition. However, the Court held that rather than simply striking down the addition outright, the correct remedy, as the tax department's representative had argued before the Tribunal, was to send the matter back to the Assessing Officer so a proper reference could now be made to the TPO under Section 92CA of the Act. The appeal was allowed to that limited extent, with the matter remanded for the Assessing Officer to follow the mandatory procedure.
When a government authority is legally required to follow a specific procedural step (such as referring a technical pricing question to a specialist officer) and skips it, courts will not simply let the authority's conclusion stand nor wipe it out entirely: they will often send the matter back so the correct procedure can be followed from that point onward.
