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 moreIn 2004, Mahavir @ Avnish, along with in-laws of the deceased Bhuri, was accused of dowry harassment, murder, and destroying evidence by cremating Bhuri's body and that of her infant daughter without informing police. The trial court acquitted him of murder and dowry death but convicted him only for causing disappearance of evidence, sentencing him to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment; this was upheld by the High Court and his Supreme Court appeal was later withdrawn. Years afterward, he approached the High Court claiming he had been a juvenile (about 17 years old) on the date of the offence, a fact never examined at trial, and sought recall of the final conviction, but the High Court held it had no power to reopen a judgment that had already attained finality up to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that a Juvenile Justice Board inquiry, ordered during these proceedings, had confirmed the appellant was indeed a juvenile (about 17 years 2 months old) at the time of the offence in 2004. It ruled that the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 CrPC is not extinguished by the bar on review under Section 362 CrPC where a judgment resulted in a miscarriage of justice, was passed without jurisdiction, or denied a party a statutory benefit like the protections owed to a juvenile. The Court traced this principle through a long line of precedent on procedural versus substantive review. On the merits, since the charges of murder and dowry death had never been proved against the appellant, his conviction for merely destroying evidence (Section 201 Part II IPC) could not stand as it requires proof that an actual offence was committed and knowingly concealed. The conviction and sentence were set aside and the appeal allowed, with the Court adding pointed observations urging investigating officers and courts to be more alert to age/juvenility issues at the earliest stage.
A claim of juvenility can be raised and inquired into even after a criminal case has become final in every court up to the Supreme Court, because the special protections owed to a juvenile offender go to the root of the case; courts have inherent power to correct such fundamental errors rather than let procedural finality perpetuate an injustice.
