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 moreIndia had imposed anti-dumping duty on imports of Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber (NBR) from Korea, periodically extended after "sunset reviews." The original five-year extension (notified 02.01.2009) was due to expire on 01.01.2014. A third sunset review was initiated by a notification dated 31.12.2013, but the notification was made public only on 06.01.2014, and a further notification extending the duty by one more year was issued only on 23.01.2014, after the original notification had already lapsed. Importers Kumho Petrochemicals and Fairdeal Polychem challenged this, and the Delhi High Court partly ruled in their favour, holding that the extension issued after expiry was invalid, while rejecting their separate argument that the review itself was invalid for being publicised after 01.01.2014. Both the Union of India/domestic industry and the importers cross-appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court dismissed both sets of appeals, affirming the High Court on both points. First, it held that under Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, only the decision to initiate a sunset review (not its public notification) needs to occur before the original duty's five-year period expires; so the review here, initiated internally on 31.12.2013 (one day before expiry), was validly initiated even though published later. Second, it held that the "second proviso" allowing anti-dumping duty to "continue" pending a review is only an enabling power, not automatic: it requires the government to actively issue a fresh notification before the original notification lapses. Since the Notification dated 02.01.2009 had already expired on 01.01.2014, the Centre's attempt to amend/extend it via a notification dated 23.01.2014 came too late, as there was nothing left in force to amend; such a duty, being a form of tax, cannot be revived without proper legal authority under Article 265 of the Constitution.
A government cannot revive a tax, duty, or similar statutory levy after it has lapsed by issuing a notification once the deadline has already passed: any extension of a time-bound duty or similar levy must be formally notified before the original period expires, not after a gap, even if a review process was already set in motion in time.
