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 was convicted of two separate murders in Delhi in 1999: first of a man at a wedding reception, and then, on the same night, of the father of an eyewitness to that first murder, apparently to silence the witness. The trial court gave him life imprisonment in both cases, with a 30-year no-remission condition in one and consecutive (rather than simultaneous) sentencing between the two. On appeal, the High Court upheld the convictions but reduced his sentence to time already served (about 17 years), then later issued a "correction" order removing that reduction, calling it a typographical fix. Both the appellant (challenging his conviction) and the complainants/State (challenging the sentence reduction) appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the appellant's conviction was rightly recorded: his counsel had, on instructions, chosen not to contest the conviction before the High Court, and in any case the High Court had independently reviewed the evidence and confirmed guilt. On sentencing, the Court held that the High Court's February 2017 order was not a genuine correction of a typo but an improper attempt to revisit its own final December 2016 judgment, which it had no jurisdiction to do once delivered, only an appellate court could alter it. The Court also held that under Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. and binding precedent, two life sentences imposed in the same trial must run concurrently (not consecutively), so the High Court's call on that point was correct, but its separate move to erase the 30-year no-remission cap on life imprisonment was wrong and was set aside. The net result: the appellant's conviction and his life sentences (with the 30-year no-remission condition) were upheld, running concurrently; his own appeal was dismissed, while the complainants' and State's appeals were partly allowed.
A High Court cannot use the guise of "correcting a typographical error" to substantively rewrite a sentence it has already finally pronounced: any such change can only be made on appeal to a higher court; and under Indian law, multiple life sentences from the same trial must run concurrently, not one after another.
