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 persons (Badru Ram and three others) were convicted of murdering two brothers, Kamal Kumar and Om Prakash, in a nighttime assault on 11 November 1999 arising out of a land dispute. The trial court had convicted ten accused, but the High Court acquitted six of them because the chief witness had not named them in his initial complaint, while upholding the conviction of the four appellants based on the testimony of two injured eyewitnesses. The four convicted men appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing they too should be acquitted on the same reasoning used for the other six, or that their offence should be downgraded to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The Supreme Court held that the two injured eyewitnesses, the surviving brother and his nephew, gave consistent, credible testimony naming the appellants, and that this testimony was not weakened by cross-examination. The Court rejected the "doctrine of parity" argument, clarifying that the other six accused were acquitted only because they were never named in the original complaint, not because the eyewitness evidence was weak, so there was no inconsistency in convicting these four while acquitting the others. The Court also rejected the argument that the killing should be treated as culpable homicide due to "sudden provocation," finding the attack was a sustained, multi-weapon assault with no evidence of provocation. The convictions and sentences were affirmed and the appeal was dismissed.
An appellate court will uphold a conviction resting on consistent eyewitness testimony even if other co-accused were acquitted for a separate, case-specific reason (such as not being named in the original complaint): parity between co-accused does not automatically follow unless the underlying reasoning for acquittal applies equally to all.
