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 moreWestern Coalfields Ltd. purchased conveyor beltings from a manufacturer, M/s. Fenner (India) Ltd., who had paid central excise duty "under protest" pending a classification dispute that was later resolved in the manufacturer's favour by the Supreme Court in 1995. Years later, in 1996, the buyer (Western Coalfields), not the manufacturer, applied for a refund of that excise duty, arguing that since the duty had originally been paid under protest, the usual six-month limitation period for refund claims should not apply to it either. The excise authorities and the Appellate Tribunal rejected the claim as time-barred, leading to this batch of appeals before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act treats the manufacturer's right to claim a refund and the buyer's right to claim a refund as separate and distinct: the manufacturer's "protest" exemption from the six-month limitation period does not automatically extend to a buyer making its own, independent refund claim. Relying on its earlier three-judge bench ruling in Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II v. Allied Photographics India Ltd., the Court held that a buyer must still file its refund application within six months from the date of purchase of the goods, regardless of whether the manufacturer had paid the duty under protest. Since the appellant-buyer admittedly filed its claim well beyond that six-month window, the Court held the claims were rightly rejected as time-barred and dismissed the entire batch of appeals.
When excise duty is paid "under protest" by a manufacturer, that protest status does not automatically transfer to a downstream buyer: a buyer seeking its own refund must independently meet the standard limitation period, since the law treats the manufacturer's and buyer's refund rights as legally distinct claims.
