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, Deepu, had initially been discharged by the trial court in a murder-and-robbery case, but that discharge order was later recalled; the Supreme Court previously set aside the recall on the technical ground that criminal courts have no power to "review or recall" their own orders under the Cr.P.C. During the trial of the other co-accused, the prosecution applied under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (which allows a court to summon any person, not originally an accused, to stand trial if evidence emerging during trial shows they appear to have committed the offence) to bring the appellant back in as an accused, based on material including a supplementary charge-sheet, an identification parade, and forensic evidence. The trial court summoned him and framed charges; the High Court upheld that order, and the appellant challenged it before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the trial court had properly exercised its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., since the earlier discharge had ignored a supplementary charge-sheet containing substantial material (identification parade results, forensic science laboratory reports, and multiple witness statements) implicating the appellant. Applying the standard laid down by a Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, the Court found the trial court had carefully examined the evidence before deciding there was a prima facie case to proceed against the appellant, and the High Court had correctly confirmed this. The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the appeal and upheld the order summoning the appellant to face trial, while clarifying that none of the observations made in this or the lower courts' orders should influence how the sessions trial is ultimately decided on its merits.
A person who has been discharged from a criminal case is not permanently out of jeopardy: if substantial evidence against them surfaces later during the trial of co-accused (such as a supplementary charge-sheet or forensic reports), the law allows the court to summon them back to stand trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C., provided the court has carefully examined that evidence first.
