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 moreA dispute between neighbours over blocked access to a shared overhead water tank escalated into a violent altercation, during which the deceased, Mohammad Shakil, was stabbed to death. Four persons were tried and convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC (murder with common intention); two of them did not challenge their conviction, but the appellants, accused nos. 3 and 4, who were alleged to have merely held the deceased's hands while others stabbed him, appealed after the Gujarat High Court upheld their life sentences.
The Supreme Court closely re-examined the sequence of events and found that the altercation and stabbing arose spontaneously out of a quarrel, with no evidence of any prior meeting of minds or pre-arranged plan among the appellants and the main assailants. Distinguishing the facts from other precedents where common intention was clearly established through coordinated conduct, the Court held that mere presence or restraining the deceased during a sudden quarrel, without more, was insufficient to attribute shared criminal intention under Section 34 IPC. Finding that the High Court had committed a manifest error in convicting the appellants, the Court held they were entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction of the two appellants was set aside, and since they were already on bail, their bail bonds were discharged.
A conviction for "common intention" under Section 34 IPC requires proof, direct or through clear circumstances, of a shared plan or meeting of minds before or during the crime; merely being present or restraining a victim during a sudden, unplanned altercation is not automatically enough to make a person equally liable for the acts of others.
