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 May 2005, a group of 14 people allegedly formed an unlawful assembly in a Rajasthan village and attacked one Hariram, who died of his injuries. The trial court convicted five of the accused (including appellants Jodhraj and Jagdish Prasad) for murder, relying mainly on two eyewitnesses, while acquitting the rest. The High Court later also acquitted one of the five convicted men (Bhanwar Lal) after finding those same two eyewitnesses unreliable as to him, but still upheld the conviction of Jodhraj and Jagdish Prasad based on the very same witnesses. Both the convicted men, and separately the State (challenging Bhanwar Lal's acquittal), appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that if the High Court itself had found the two key eyewitnesses unreliable as a matter of credibility (due to an 18-day delay in recording their statements and exaggeration implicating too many people) and used that to acquit one co-accused, it could not then rely on the testimony of those very same witnesses to sustain the conviction of the other accused, absent any other corroborating evidence. The Court found no independent evidence against Jodhraj and Jagdish Prasad beyond the doubted testimony, so it quashed their convictions and acquitted them, giving them the benefit of the doubt. The State's appeal against Bhanwar Lal's acquittal was dismissed, as the High Court's reasons for disbelieving the witnesses were found to be cogent.
A court cannot pick and choose which parts of an already-doubted witness's testimony to believe: if a witness is found unreliable enough to acquit one accused, the same doubt should ordinarily benefit similarly placed co-accused unless there is separate, independent evidence against them.
