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 two appellants, along with three co-accused, were convicted over a 1997 dispute about a drainage passage that escalated into a group assault causing a severe head injury to one victim, Budhram, who was left mentally impaired and unable to testify. The trial court convicted all five under Section 325 (grievous hurt) along with other lesser IPC offences; the Punjab and Haryana High Court, hearing both the convicts' appeal and the victim's revision for enhancement, increased their sentence for the main offence from three to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Notice in the Supreme Court was issued solely on the question of sentence.
The appellants argued they deserved the same leniency (release on probation) given to three co-accused, but the Supreme Court held that concession had been granted to those three specifically because of their extreme old age (75-85 years), a ground that did not apply to the appellants. However, since no evidence specifically identified which of the five assailants struck the blow that caused Budhram's serious head injury, and given the case's origin in a minor civil dispute over a drain and the long ordeal of a 19-year-old trial, the Court found the five-year sentence too severe and reduced it back to three years' rigorous imprisonment for both appellants, while leaving the fine and other convictions intact.
Leniency granted to co-accused based on a personal factor like extreme old age does not automatically extend to other convicts by "parity"; but where no specific individual role (such as who struck the critical blow) can be pinned on any particular defendant in a group assault, courts may moderate sentence enhancement accordingly.
