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, an Inspector with the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU), was alleged to have demanded Rs. 4,000 as a bribe from a complainant seeking an electricity connection, and to have directed the complainant to hand the money to a co-accused, Rajinder Kumar, who was then caught red-handed with the cash by a CBI raiding party. The trial court acquitted both the appellant and Rajinder Kumar of criminal conspiracy, acquitted Rajinder Kumar entirely, but still convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, relying on a shadow witness's evidence. The Delhi High Court upheld this conviction, and the State did not appeal either acquittal, so those became final.
The Supreme Court held that since the conspiracy charge against both accused had failed, and Rajinder Kumar (who actually received and was caught with the money) was fully acquitted of the substantive bribery charges, the appellant could not be convicted on the theory that Rajinder Kumar accepted the money "on his behalf": that theory depended entirely on the conspiracy charge that had already failed and attained finality. The Court reasoned that proving bribery under the PC Act requires proof of both "demand" and "acceptance" of the bribe by the accused, and here the prosecution could show at most a demand by the appellant but not acceptance by him, since the money was recovered from the co-accused who had been cleanly acquitted. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted and need not surrender if already on bail.
A bribery conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof of both demand and actual acceptance of the bribe by the specific accused; if the "acceptance" element relies on a conspiracy theory that has already failed (and the person who actually took the money has been acquitted), the person who merely allegedly demanded the bribe cannot be convicted on that unproven theory alone.
