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 tea-estate watchmen (chowkidars) were convicted of murdering a man they suspected of stealing tea bushes, based on circumstantial evidence: a witness heard a commotion, found the victim lying injured near the accused, and a lathi (stick) used in the assault was later recovered from one accused's house. The trial court and Gauhati High Court concurrently convicted all four under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC (murder with common intention), relying on a chain of nine circumstances. Three of the four appellants argued there was no evidence they personally struck the fatal blows or shared any common intention to kill, while the fourth did not seriously dispute the case against him given the weapon was recovered from his home.
The Supreme Court held that mere presence at the scene is not enough to convict under Section 34 IPC, which requires proof of a shared common intention, and since there was no evidence that three of the appellants (Bikash Bora, Atul Bora, and Haren Rautia) wielded weapons or participated in inflicting the fatal injuries, their convictions could not stand, and they were acquitted by giving them the benefit of the doubt. However, the circumstantial evidence against the fourth appellant, Dipankar Bora, including recovery of the lathi from his house and medical evidence that the fatal injuries matched that weapon, was found sufficient, and his conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC was upheld. The Court also declined to downgrade his offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, since the deceased was unarmed and could not have provoked a response warranting such severe, fatal blows.
Being present at a crime scene alongside others who are convicted does not by itself make a person criminally liable: the prosecution must specifically prove that each accused shared the common intention to commit the crime or personally participated in the fatal act, not merely that they were there.
