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 moreOn 3 June 2000, six armed men alighted from a bus at Tihuli bus stand in Madhya Pradesh and opened fire on Balkishan, Chairman of a Watershed Committee, apparently over a long-standing political rivalry between the families of the main (absconding) accused Vikram and the deceased. After the first shot hit the deceased's arm, the group chased him into a nearby house, dragged him to the courtyard, and shot him at point-blank range, killing him. Four of the accused (including the appellants Dablu, Kamlesh, Pratap, and Vinod) were convicted of murder and rioting and sentenced to life imprisonment, with the Trial Court and High Court both upholding the conviction; they appealed to the Supreme Court arguing there was no reliable eyewitness to the fatal second incident inside the house, and that key witnesses were interested relatives of the deceased with contradictory testimony.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the convictions and life sentences. It held that all the accused arriving together, armed, and alighting from the same bus was sufficient to establish they were part of an "unlawful assembly" sharing a "common object" to attack the deceased, which under Section 149 IPC makes every member vicariously liable for the murder even if a specific overt act cannot be pinned on each individual. The consistent testimony of multiple witnesses that the accused chased the deceased from the bus stand to the house, combined with recovered cartridges, ballistic reports, and a post-mortem showing multiple gunshot wounds, corroborated the prosecution's case despite some witnesses being relatives of the deceased and some procedural lapses (like alleged non-compliance with Section 157 CrPC) that the Court found were not fatal to the case.
Under Section 149 IPC, mere membership in an armed group that shares a common unlawful purpose is enough to convict every member for a crime committed by any one of them: an individual does not need to be shown personally striking the fatal blow to be held equally liable for murder.
