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 moreFollowing a 2009 murder FIR naming five persons, only two were chargesheeted initially. The complainant applied under Section 319 CrPC to have the remaining three, including the appellants Jamin and Akil, summoned to face trial alongside the others. The Trial Court initially rejected this application, but the Allahabad High Court, in a revision petition, set that rejection aside and directed reconsideration; years later - after the original trial against the two chargesheeted accused had already concluded - the Trial Court, acting on the High Court's direction, summoned the appellants. The appellants challenged this summoning as illegal since it came after the trial's conclusion, but the High Court dismissed their plea, leading to this appeal.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an order passed by a High Court in revision "relates back" to the date of the original (erroneous) order it corrects, so the later summoning order effectively took legal effect at the time the original Section 319 application was wrongly rejected - before the trial concluded. The Court also clarified the law on Section 319 CrPC broadly: a proposed accused ordinarily has no right to a hearing before being summoned to face trial, but if a right to remain unsummoned has already accrued (because an application to summon them was earlier rejected) and the High Court later reverses that in revision to their prejudice, the proposed accused must be given a hearing at that revisional stage as required under Section 401(2) CrPC.
A court correcting its own earlier mistake in revision does not lose the power to add new accused to an ongoing case merely because time has passed or the original trial has since concluded - the corrected order is treated as if it had been made at the right time in the first place.
