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 appellant was convicted under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) and other provisions, along with Section 25 of the Arms Act, by the trial court and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment with fine. The conviction rested substantially on the testimony of an injured witness (PW-11), a jail warder who claimed to know the appellant from an earlier period of custody together. The appellant challenged his conviction before the Supreme Court, arguing the witness's identification was unreliable.
The Court noted that although PW-11 claimed to know the appellant from before, he did not name the appellant in the FIR: he named only one other accused and described the rest as unknown assailants. The appellant's name surfaced for the first time only in the witness's court deposition, which the Court treated as a material omission and improvement over the original police statement, not a trivial lapse. The witness was also confronted in cross-examination with contradictions regarding who fired the second shot. Given these infirmities, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the appellant's presence at the scene beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, the appellant was acquitted on benefit of doubt, and his release from custody was ordered.
A witness's failure to name an accused in the first report to police (the FIR), followed by naming them for the first time only in court testimony, is treated by courts as a serious omission that can entitle the accused to acquittal on benefit of doubt, especially when the witness claims prior acquaintance with the accused and had no obvious reason to omit the name earlier.
