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 moreTax authorities issued show cause notices to two transport companies and their trade association, alleging that their multi-leg cargo-delivery business (road transport, then sea transport via port handling, then road transport again) should be taxed at a higher rate as "cargo handling service" rather than the lower-taxed "goods transport agency" category the companies had registered under. Instead of responding to the notices before the tax authority, the companies went directly to the Gujarat High Court, which quashed the notices, holding on the merits that their activity was correctly classifiable as "goods transport agency" under binding CBEC circulars and rejecting the government's objection that the writ petition was premature.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in entertaining a writ petition directly against show cause notices, since this was neither a case of the tax authority lacking jurisdiction nor a breach of natural justice: the two recognised exceptions that justify bypassing the ordinary process of responding to a notice and pursuing a statutory appeal. The Court found that genuine, fact-sensitive disputes existed over how the applicable circulars should be interpreted and whether they covered this type of multi-modal transport arrangement, so it was not a case with "no factual disputes" as the High Court had assumed, and classification questions are properly worked out through the statutory adjudication and appeal process, which here lead all the way to the Supreme Court itself. The Court allowed the government's appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and gave the companies four weeks to respond to the show cause notices so the tax authority could decide the classification question on its own merits, without being influenced by any of the Court's observations.
A show cause notice is ordinarily not something a court will step in to cancel directly, unless the authority clearly has no jurisdiction or has violated basic fairness, the right path is to respond to the notice and use the statutory appeal process, not to go straight to a writ petition.
