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 2014, the appellant Hakim and a co-accused (his son, an advocate) were alleged to have blocked the path of a woman near a railway crossing in Mathura and poured acid on her in revenge for an earlier police complaint she had made against them, leaving her with severe facial disfigurement and near-total loss of vision in one eye. Both were convicted under Section 326A IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by acid) and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Trial Court, a sentence upheld by the Delhi High Court. Hakim, by then about 73 years old and seriously ill, along with his son appealed to the Supreme Court, contesting both the conviction and the sentence.
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of both appellants, rejecting arguments about delayed witness statements, alleged inconsistencies, and lack of recovered acid, finding the eyewitness and extensive medical evidence fully supported the concurrent findings of the lower courts, and that the Court's power to interfere with such concurrent findings under Article 136 is narrow. On sentence, however, the Court reduced Hakim's life sentence to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment, citing his advanced age (73) and serious, documented ailments, bringing his sentence in line with that given to a third, younger co-accused who had already received a reduced term. His son's (Umesh, an advocate) life sentence was left undisturbed, the Court noting his greater responsibility as an officer of the court.
While the Supreme Court rarely disturbs concurrent findings of guilt from lower courts, it can still reduce a sentence on humanitarian grounds such as advanced age and serious illness, even in a grave offence like an acid attack, though co-accused with similar roles may still receive very different outcomes based on individual circumstances.
