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 and five others were tried for rioting and murder (under Sections 147, 148, and 302 read with 149 IPC) after allegedly attacking and killing one Dhammanand with a weapon called a "katti" during a confrontation at Dhanegaon in 2005. The Sessions Court convicted only the appellant (accused No.1) under Section 302 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment, while acquitting him of the rioting charges and acquitting all five co-accused entirely. Both the appellant's appeal and the State's appeal (against the co-accused's acquittal) were dismissed by the Bombay High Court, and only the appellant's conviction came before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court re-examined the evidence, including eyewitness testimony from two prosecution witnesses who described the sequence of events and specifically identified the appellant as having struck the fatal blow, and noted that the murder weapon had been recovered and matched by a forensic laboratory report. The Court found minor inconsistencies raised by the defence (such as visibility of a cot in a site map, or witnesses being blocked at a doorway) did not undermine the witnesses' ability to have observed the killing, given the sequence of events leading into the house where it occurred. Since the Sessions Court and High Court had both carefully examined the evidence and concurrently found the appellant guilty, the Supreme Court saw no reason to take a different view and dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and life sentence.
When two courts below (trial court and High Court) have both carefully considered the same evidence and reached the same conclusion on guilt ("concurrent findings"), the Supreme Court will generally not re-weigh minor inconsistencies in witness testimony to overturn a murder conviction, especially where physical evidence like a recovered weapon and forensic report corroborates the eyewitness account.
