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, along with two co-accused, was tried for the murder of one Sukhdeo Dhurve, who was stabbed and kicked to death in a public market following a quarrel rooted in a dispute over the deceased's sister's relationship with another villager. The Trial Court convicted the appellant and one co-accused under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment, while acquitting the third accused; the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) upheld this conviction. The appellant challenged that conviction before the Supreme Court, arguing he was falsely implicated due to community rivalry and that eyewitness testimony was inconsistent and delayed.
The Supreme Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, relying on the consistent testimony of eyewitnesses who saw the appellant stab the deceased, and reaffirmed settled law that minor discrepancies (as opposed to material contradictions) in witness accounts do not weaken a prosecution case. The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and life sentence. However, noting that the appellant had already served over 14 years and 10 months in actual custody (and over 20 years counting remission), the Court granted him liberty to apply afresh for premature release, directing the State Government to pass a reasoned order on any such application within three months.
Minor inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony, as opposed to real contradictions, will not by themselves create reasonable doubt in a criminal case. Separately, convicts who have served very long prison terms can seek premature release/remission under the government policy applicable to their case, and courts can direct authorities to decide such applications expeditiously.
