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 March 2000, a group of men posing as customs officers forcibly abducted one Ranjan Ojha in Calcutta and robbed him of Rs. 5 lakh in cash he was carrying for his employer. Jahangir Hussain and Parmeshwar Lal Soni, two of the accused, were put on trial along with others; the trial court convicted Hussain under Section 395 IPC (robbery/dacoity) and Soni under Section 412 IPC (receiving stolen property), based on identification in a test-identification parade and recovery of part of the looted cash from them. The Calcutta High Court confirmed both convictions and the seven-year sentences, and both men appealed to the Supreme Court: one seeking acquittal, the other at least a reduced sentence given the 19 years that had passed since the offence.
The Supreme Court re-examined the evidence and agreed with both lower courts that the identification evidence and recovery of stolen cash justified the convictions, finding no error in the concurrent findings of guilt. However, considering the long passage of time since the 2000 offence, the appellants' ages (now in their mid-40s and mid-60s), lack of prior criminal record, and family circumstances, the Court exercised leniency on sentence alone: it upheld the convictions but reduced the prison term from seven years to five years rigorous imprisonment while increasing the fine from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 20,000 each. The appeals were allowed only in part (on sentence), and both men were ordered back into custody to serve the remainder of their modified sentence.
Even where a conviction is fully upheld on the evidence, the Supreme Court retains discretion to moderate the sentence, for instance where a very long time has elapsed since the offence, but such relief is confined to sentencing and does not disturb a soundly-established finding of guilt.
