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, an Assistant Administrative Officer at an insurance company branch, was accused of demanding a Rs. 40,000 bribe from a claimant's relative (through the appellant's own brother, a co-accused) to expedite settlement of an accident insurance claim. A CBI trap was laid; the tainted money was ultimately handed over not to the appellant but to a separate regional-office official (another co-accused) at that official's house, with the appellant's brother acting as the go-between. The trial court acquitted the appellant, but the High Court reversed this and convicted him.
The Supreme Court found the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant himself demanded or accepted any bribe. Critically, the appellant was not even present when the money actually changed hands, only his brother and the other official were, and no independent witness corroborated any direct demand made personally by the appellant, a requirement in trap cases. The Court held this was, at best, a "botched-up trap" with serious investigative lapses, or at worst an attempted frame-up, and that the mere fact the money-handler was the appellant's brother could not by itself establish the appellant's guilt. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, the Court set aside the High Court's conviction and restored the trial court's acquittal.
A bribery conviction requires proof of an actual demand and acceptance by the specific accused, independently corroborated by witnesses, being related to someone who is caught taking money is not, by itself, enough to establish criminal liability.
