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 arose after a woman's son married without her approval, and a village panchayat (community meeting) was convened to settle related tensions between two families. Before the panchayat could proceed, the accused, including the woman's brother and several relatives, arrived armed with sickles, an iron pipe, and wooden staffs, and attacked the woman and her family, fatally injuring her with a sickle blow to the head. Nine people were convicted at trial for murder or lesser assault offences depending on their role, and five of them appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the main attacker could not claim the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (which reduces murder to culpable homicide for an unplanned fight in sudden passion), because the accused had come armed to what was meant to be a peace-making meeting, showing the attack was not spontaneous, and the fatal blow to the head with a sickle fell squarely within the "fourthly" clause of Section 300 IPC (an act so imminently dangerous it must, in all probability, cause death). His conviction and life sentence were upheld. However, for a second accused who struck only non-fatal blows with an iron pipe causing mere abrasions, the Court held that since the trial court had not invoked common-intention provisions (Section 34/149 IPC), each accused could only be held liable for his own specific act, so his conviction was reduced from murder to the lesser offence of voluntarily causing hurt with a dangerous weapon (Section 324 IPC), with his sentence reduced to time already served. The convictions of the remaining appellants for their respective lesser roles were left undisturbed, and the appeal was dismissed for three of the five appellants while allowed in part for the second accused.
In a group assault, criminal liability is not automatically shared equally by everyone present, unless the prosecution proves and the court applies a "common intention" or "unlawful assembly" provision, each person is legally responsible only for the specific injury their own actions actually caused, which can mean very different outcomes for people in the same incident.
