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 moreAn Income Tax Inspector (A2) and his superior, an Assessing Officer (A1), were alleged to have demanded a Rs.5 lakh bribe from a complainant (a firm's partner) in exchange for finalising a pending tax assessment. The complainant approached the CBI, which laid a trap: marked, phenolphthalein-powder-coated currency notes were handed over to A2 by the complainant in the presence of independent witnesses, and A2 was caught with the tainted money in his coat pocket, with his hands turning pink on chemical testing. The Trial Court convicted both accused, but the High Court acquitted both, finding no proof of a conspiracy between them and no clear proof of a bribe demand, prompting the CBI's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's acquittal of A1 (the Assessing Officer), agreeing that the only evidence against him was the complainant's account of a demand supposedly made by A2 "on behalf of" A1, which as an uncorroborated statement implicating a co-accused could not sustain a conviction, and that no independent conspiracy under Section 120B IPC was established. However, the Court set aside the acquittal of A2 (the Inspector, respondent Baljeet Singh), finding that the demand and acceptance of the bribe were fully corroborated by the complainant's testimony, the Trap Laying Officer, and two independent witnesses, along with physical evidence including the recovered marked notes and the pink-tinted chemical wash of A2's hands. The Court restored A2's conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act as originally handed down by the Trial Court, but modified his sentence from four years' rigorous imprisonment to one year (considering his age), retaining the Rs.1 lakh fine, and directed him to surrender within four weeks.
A bribery conviction can rest firmly on the corroborated evidence of a trap operation (the complainant's account, independent witnesses, and forensic proof like the phenolphthalein test) even without independent corroboration from every raiding party member, but a co-accused's implication of another based only on a third party's uncorroborated say-so cannot by itself sustain that other person's conviction.
