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 moreOn 19 November 1985, four men armed with a gun, a Tangi (an axe-like weapon) and a Pharsa attacked four villagers harvesting paddy in Jharkhand; one victim, Jitu Mahto, could not flee and was killed on the spot by gunshot, a cut to the hand, and blows with stones to the head. All four accused were convicted of murder by the Sessions Court and sentenced to life imprisonment, a conviction upheld by the High Court of Jharkhand. Two of the four accused died during the pendency of their Supreme Court appeals, leaving two appeals, including this one by Madan Mohan Mahto, to be decided together.
The Supreme Court held that it would not reassess evidence afresh where two courts below had already concurrently appreciated the ocular evidence, absent any perversity or illegality. Examining the testimony of the two surviving eyewitnesses, who knew the accused personally and gave consistent accounts corroborated by post-mortem findings, the Court found no material contradiction and upheld the common intention to murder under Section 34 IPC. The appeals were dismissed and the conviction and life sentence were affirmed.
When the trial court and the High Court have both already scrutinised the same eyewitness evidence and reached the same conclusion, the Supreme Court will rarely interfere unless the findings are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence: consistent, corroborated eyewitness testimony from people who know the accused personally is very difficult to overturn on appeal.
