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 moreFour members of a family were killed in an assault arising from a land/harvesting dispute, and the accused (the appellants) were tried before a Sessions Court, which convicted them and imposed the death penalty, subject to High Court confirmation. During the trial, the statements of twelve prosecution witnesses had been recorded by the trial court without ensuring the appellants' presence in court (they were in judicial custody at the time), a procedure the defence argued violated Section 273 CrPC and incurably vitiated the whole trial. On the death reference and appeal, the Rajasthan High Court did not acquit the accused or restart the whole trial; instead, it directed that those twelve witnesses be examined afresh ("de novo") in the appellants' presence, while keeping the trial court's judgment itself in abeyance. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court against this "de novo examination" direction, arguing the entire trial should instead be declared void and they should be acquitted.
The Supreme Court held that recording witness testimony in the absence of the accused is indeed an irregularity, but it does not automatically vitiate an otherwise properly conducted trial, especially where defence counsel cross-examined the witnesses and never raised the objection as a ground of prejudice during the trial itself. Relying on precedent on when retrial versus remedial re-examination is appropriate, the Court held the correct remedy for such a procedural infirmity is to have the same witnesses re-examined in the presence of the accused, not a wholesale acquittal or declaration that the trial was void, since the accused would then get a full and fair opportunity to observe and cross-examine the witnesses. Balancing the accused's fair-trial rights against the societal interest in not letting four murders go unaddressed on a technical infraction, the Court affirmed the High Court's direction for de novo examination of the witnesses and dismissed the appeals, lifting the earlier restraint on the trial court from pronouncing judgment so the case could proceed to its logical conclusion. The Court expressly clarified it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution's case.
Not every procedural lapse during a criminal trial, such as recording witness evidence without the accused physically present, automatically invalidates the whole trial; courts will prefer a proportionate remedy (like re-examining the same witnesses properly) that protects the accused's fair-trial rights without letting a correctable technical defect derail a serious prosecution altogether.
