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 and a co-accused (whose connected appeal was heard together) were convicted by the trial court, and the conviction affirmed by the Karnataka High Court, for the murder of a woman who went missing in March 2013 near Mudhol. The prosecution's case rested mainly on two circumstances: the accused being "last seen together" with the deceased, and disclosure statements said to have led to "discovery" of facts (such as the place of killing and where the body was burnt) admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants. It held that the discovery evidence was inadmissible because it arose from a joint, simultaneous statement made by multiple accused together, without any way to distinguish which accused's statement led distinctly to which discovered fact: Section 27 requires the information to relate directly and distinctly to a fact discovered through that specific person's disclosure, and there can be no "re-discovery" or blended joint discovery of this kind. With the discovery evidence excluded, only the "last seen together" circumstance remained, which the Court held was, by itself, too weak to sustain a murder conviction beyond reasonable doubt: the prosecution's case "may be true" is not the same as it "must be true."
In circumstantial-evidence prosecutions, a joint disclosure statement by several accused together cannot be used as "discovery" evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act unless it distinctly attributes a specific discovered fact to a specific accused; and "last seen together" alone, without corroborating links in the chain, cannot support a conviction for a serious offence like murder.
