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 case arose from a land dispute in which the accused had earlier been forced to hand over disputed land to the complainant's family. The complainant alleged that the accused persons later trespassed onto her land and used caste-based derogatory language against her family in the presence of villagers, leading to convictions under Section 447 IPC (house trespass) and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act by the Trial Court, upheld with a modified sentence by the High Court.
The Supreme Court found serious inconsistencies between the original complaint (which alleged trespass into the complainant's house by breaking a lock) and the oral testimony at trial (where all witnesses instead described the incident occurring in an open field). More critically, the key prosecution witness admitted under cross-examination that no member of the public was present at the scene, only close family members, which meant the alleged abuse could not have occurred "within public view" as the SC/ST Act requires for the offences charged. Finding no evidence of forcible eviction to support the trespass allegation either, the Court acquitted all the appellants.
For an offence under the SC/ST Act involving insult or intimidation by caste name, the incident must genuinely occur within public view: abuse witnessed only by the complainant's own family does not meet this legal requirement, and inconsistencies between an FIR's account and witnesses' courtroom testimony can be fatal to a conviction.
