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 moreJagjit Singh's wife died by drowning along with their young daughter within three years of their 1998 marriage. The trial court convicted him under Section 304-B IPC (dowry death) based on his father-in-law's and sister-in-law's testimony that the deceased had repeatedly complained of beatings and demands for a Maruti car or Rs. 2 lakhs, while acquitting his parents and brothers of related charges; the Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed the conviction but reduced his sentence from 8 to 7 years. He appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave.
The Supreme Court extensively reviewed the limited scope of its jurisdiction under Article 136 in criminal appeals against concurrent findings of fact, holding it will interfere only where there is perversity, misreading of evidence, or disregard of natural justice. Applying Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, the Court found that since the prosecution established that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty/harassment for dowry soon before her death (through a phone call to her father and a visit to her sister on the day before her death), a presumption of dowry death arose against the appellant, which the defence evidence (neighbours and a relative testifying to a happy family) failed to rebut. Although the Court flagged several "troubling features" (such as the father-in-law having funded the deceased's education and being acquitted himself), it held the trial court and High Court's concurrent findings were not perverse or unsupported by evidence, and therefore declined to interfere. The appeal was dismissed.
Once a woman is shown to have faced dowry-related cruelty or harassment shortly before her unnatural death, the law presumes the accused caused her "dowry death," and it is for the accused to rebut that presumption with credible evidence, and the Supreme Court will rarely disturb concurrent factual findings of guilt by the trial court and High Court unless there is a clear legal error or perversity.
