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 moreVoltas Ltd., a company that designs, supplies and installs air-conditioning and water-chilling plants as indivisible works contracts, was engaged by a Bombay chemicals company to design and install a water-chilling plant to specific technical parameters (tonnage of refrigeration, chilled water temperature and quantity) at a factory in Vapi, Gujarat. A dispute arose over which entry of a Gujarat Sales Tax composition-of-tax notification applied to this contract: Voltas argued it fell under the lower 5% rate for "fabrication and installation of plant and machinery," while the tax authorities and the Gujarat High Court held it was taxable at 15% as an "installation of air-conditioners and A.C. coolers." The High Court ruled against Voltas, prompting this appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the works contract genuinely involved "fabrication", not mere installation, because the customer's work order demanded a custom-designed plant built to specific engineering parameters, requiring the contractor to design, configure and build the plant's components before positioning it, rather than simply installing an off-the-shelf air-conditioning unit. The Court reasoned that the Notification's use of the word "fabrication" specifically in the plant-and-machinery entry (and its absence from the air-conditioner entry) was a deliberate legislative choice reflecting a real difference between the two categories, and that tax notifications must be read strictly by their plain language without importing assumptions. It also held the High Court had wrongly treated the composition scheme as akin to an exemption requiring extra-strict construction against the taxpayer, when it is really an alternative tax-payment mechanism. Finding the contract's design-and-fabrication character determinative, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and classified the contract under the 5% "fabrication and installation of plant and machinery" entry.
How a tax statute or notification classifies a transaction turns on the real substance of what was actually done (here, custom design and fabrication versus simple installation), not on a generic label like "air-conditioning", and ambiguous tax provisions are to be read strictly by their own words, resolving genuine doubt in the taxpayer's favour.
