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 moreA mother filed an FIR alleging her 14-year-old daughter was abducted by one Natuji, who was chargesheeted alone under Sections 363/366 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act. More than a year later, during trial, the victim's court statement additionally named the appellants (Labhuji and two others) as having been present or having driven a jeep used during the events. The prosecution applied under Section 319 CrPC to add the appellants as accused; the trial court rejected this (suspecting mala fide motive), but the Gujarat High Court reversed that order and directed that the appellants be summoned for trial.
The Supreme Court relied on the Constitution Bench ruling in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, which holds that the extraordinary power under Section 319 CrPC must be exercised sparingly, only on evidence stronger than what is needed to merely frame a charge: evidence that, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction. Examining the victim's own statement, the Court found she never alleged any act of sexual offence or abduction by the appellants; at most, she said they were present in or associated with a jeep used to transport her, which did not show complicity in the POCSO/abduction offence. The mother's statement implicating the appellants was hearsay. Because the High Court's four-paragraph order never applied this stringent test or gave adequate reasons, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the trial court's rejection of the Section 319 application, allowing the appeal.
Courts cannot add new accused mid-trial merely because a witness mentions someone's name in passing: the law requires evidence strong enough that, if unrebutted, it would support a conviction, not just presence or association with the main accused.
