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 appellant, his parents and his brother were jointly tried for the murder of the appellant's wife, along with a dowry-harassment charge, after the woman died at home under suspicious circumstances just over a year into the marriage. Her father alleged that the appellant and his family had repeatedly demanded additional dowry (gold, cash and goods for a bakery business) and had threatened to kill her if the demands were not met. The trial court convicted all four family members, but on appeal the High Court acquitted the parents and brother of everything and acquitted the appellant of the dowry-harassment charge, while convicting him alone of murder under Section 302 IPC (rather than the originally charged "Section 302 read with Section 34," which requires more than one person acting together). The appellant challenged this in the Supreme Court, arguing that once his co-accused were acquitted of the joint charge, he could not be separately convicted for the same incident, and that the death may actually have been a suicide, not a murder.
The Supreme Court examined precedent on this exact issue, including Krishna Govind Patil, Sawal Das, and Sukhram, and clarified that acquittal of co-accused on a joint charge does not automatically bar conviction of the remaining accused alone; it depends on whether the evidence, independent of the joint-action theory, still proves that specific individual's own culpable act. Here, the medical evidence (neck injuries, crushed thyroid and cricoid cartilage, and other features) was found consistent with throttling/strangulation rather than suicide by hanging, based on well-established medico-legal distinctions between the two. The Court found credible evidence that the appellant alone had recently threatened to kill his wife over unmet dowry demands, and that as her husband sharing a bedroom with her, he was the only person with custodial access at the approximate time of death (around 3:30 a.m.), making this a case of "custodial death" pointing squarely at him alone, regardless of what happened to the other family members. The Court also accepted the prosecution's explanation for an apparent discrepancy in the post-mortem report's dates (the report was completed and signed later than the examination because a co-signing doctor was unavailable), finding it adequately corroborated by a contemporaneous provisional death certificate. Finding no merit in the appeal, the Court dismissed it, cancelled the appellant's bail, and ordered him back into custody to serve his sentence.
When several people are jointly charged with "acting together" in a crime, the acquittal of the other co-accused does not automatically clear the remaining accused: if independent evidence shows that specific person committed the act on their own (such as being the only person with access to the victim at the time of death), a conviction for the crime by themselves can still stand.
