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 an earlier daytime scuffle over an unpaid financial transaction, the appellant allegedly intercepted the deceased and his father on their way home that evening and fatally struck the deceased on the head with an iron rod; the deceased died from the head injury while being shifted for treatment. The trial court acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove motive and that the sole eyewitness (the deceased's father) was uncorroborated. The State appealed, and the High Court reversed the acquittal, convicting the appellant under Sections 302/341 of the Ranbir Penal Code and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal because the trial court had taken an unduly hyper-technical approach and wrongly discounted the eyewitness testimony of the deceased's father (PW9), which was corroborated by oral, documentary and expert evidence. The Court reiterated that a close relative's eyewitness account should not be discarded merely for being "interested" if it otherwise inspires confidence, and that minor contradictions not going to the root of the matter should not defeat an otherwise reliable prosecution case. It also clarified that an eyewitness need not himself be injured, or walk immediately alongside the victim, for his testimony to be credible. Finding the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the High Court's interference with the acquittal met the required threshold (manifest illegality in the trial court's appreciation of evidence), the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.
An eyewitness's testimony, even from a close relative of the victim, can be solid enough to sustain a murder conviction if it is internally consistent and corroborated by other evidence: courts are not required to discard such testimony merely because minor details are imperfectly remembered or because the witness is related to the victim.
