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 was convicted for forgery and cheating in connection with a fabricated MBBS admission marksheet - the original showed a candidate had scored 767 out of 1200 marks, but the forged version submitted for admission showed 1120 out of 1200. The prosecution's case against the appellant rested on an allegation that he had handwritten the postal cover used to send the forged marksheet, a conclusion based on a handwriting expert's opinion. The Trial Court, appellate court, and High Court all upheld his conviction.
The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, holding that the original postal cover was never produced or formally exhibited as evidence at trial - only a photocopy was relied upon, and even the handwriting expert did not clearly identify the disputed postal cover as the one he examined. Citing its earlier ruling in Murari Lal v. State of M.P. on the cautious, correlative use of handwriting expert opinion, the Court held that since the very document said to bear the appellant's handwriting was never proved to exist as claimed, the expert's opinion on it had no evidentiary value, and the conviction built on that opinion could not stand.
A criminal conviction cannot rest on an expert's opinion about a document that itself was never properly produced and proved in court - the foundational evidence must be established before any expert analysis of it can be relied upon.
