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 moreGopal Singh and Avtar Singh, along with other accused, were convicted by the Sessions Court under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC for the murder of Gaje Singh following a village altercation involving stones and sticks; the High Court reduced the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC. The prosecution's case rested on two alleged eyewitnesses, PW-1 (the complainant) and PW-3, along with hearsay evidence from four court witnesses.
The Supreme Court found that both PW-1 and PW-3 gave their evidence in court while the appellants were absent, and neither witness was ever asked to identify the appellants in court as the persons they claimed to have seen committing the offence, only naming them without identification. The remaining court witnesses offered only hearsay about what others had told them. The Court held that establishing the accused's identity is fundamental to any conviction, and since this was never done for these appellants, it amounted to "no evidence" against them. The convictions were quashed and the appellants acquitted, with their bail bonds cancelled.
Naming an accused person is not the same as proving their identity: a conviction cannot stand unless prosecution witnesses actually identify the accused in court as the person who committed the offence, not merely allege it in their statements.
