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 was convicted by the Sessions Court at Rajamundary for the murder (Section 302 IPC) and destruction of evidence (Section 201 IPC) of one Desineedi Venkateswararao, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld this conviction on appeal, while three co-accused had already been acquitted (an acquittal the State did not challenge). The appellant, through the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, filed this further appeal from jail challenging the concurrent findings of guilt by both lower courts.
The Supreme Court reiterated that concurrent findings of fact by the Sessions Court and High Court, based on appreciation of oral evidence, are ordinarily binding on it unless the appellant shows perversity, arbitrariness, absurdity, or illegality, and it does not re-appreciate evidence afresh as a third court absent such a showing. Reviewing the record, including testimony from 33 prosecution witnesses, the Court found seven unbroken circumstances linking the appellant to the crime (including being last seen with the deceased, his fingerprints on recovered items, and his failure to explain these circumstances) were properly relied upon by the lower courts despite some witnesses turning hostile. Finding no material contradiction or inconsistency that the appellant's counsel could point to, the Court held there was no merit in the appeal.
When two lower courts have already examined the same evidence and reached the same conclusion on guilt, the Supreme Court will not reopen and re-weigh that evidence a third time unless the appellant can show the earlier findings were perverse, arbitrary, or legally unsound: simply disagreeing with how the evidence was assessed is not enough to overturn a conviction.
