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 moreIn August 1985, following an altercation over goats grazing on crops, a group of men armed with weapons including a pistol, sword, axe and spears attacked and killed two brothers, Bulaki Mandal and his nephew Hriday, in a village in Bihar (now Jharkhand). The Sessions Court convicted the appellants of murder based on the testimony of four eyewitnesses and sentenced them to life imprisonment; the Jharkhand High Court upheld the conviction in 2019. The appellants challenged their conviction before the Supreme Court decades after the incident, arguing the eyewitnesses were all relatives of the victims and thus biased, that no murder weapons were ever recovered, and that they were improperly and only generically questioned under Section 313 of the CrPC about the evidence against them.
The Supreme Court held that the four eyewitnesses' testimony was consistent, credible, and had withstood cross-examination without any material contradiction: the mere fact that witnesses were related to the deceased did not, by itself, discredit their evidence, since their presence at the scene was natural. Relying on established precedent, the Court reaffirmed that non-recovery of the assault weapons is not fatal to a prosecution case where reliable ocular evidence, corroborated by medical evidence, otherwise establishes guilt. On the Section 313 objection, the Court held that generic or similarly-worded questions to co-accused do not automatically vitiate a conviction. The accused must additionally show actual prejudice resulted, which the appellants failed to demonstrate here given the strength of the eyewitness evidence. Finding no infirmity in either the trial court's or the High Court's findings, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and life sentence.
A murder conviction can be sustained on credible eyewitness testimony alone even without recovery of the weapon used, and a claim that questioning under Section 313 CrPC was too generic will not overturn a conviction unless the accused can show they were actually prejudiced by it, being related to the victim does not, on its own, disqualify a witness.
