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 April 1999, the appellant Mahendra Singh and a co-accused were alleged to have murdered a man after a village fair. Singh absconded; his case was split from the co-accused's (who was tried separately and acquitted). Singh was arrested only in 2017, 18 years later. By the time of his trial, the key eyewitness had died, and the other witnesses either turned hostile or failed to identify him (one noted there were two men of the same name in the village). He was nonetheless convicted based on the deceased eyewitness's testimony recorded years earlier, before his arrest.
The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, holding that Section 299 CrPC, which allows testimony recorded in an absconding accused's absence to later be used against him if the witness becomes unavailable, requires a court to have formally and conjunctively established, at the time the evidence was first recorded, both that the accused was absconding and that there was no immediate prospect of arresting him. No such order had ever been passed in 1999. Since this mandatory precondition was never satisfied, the deceased witness's earlier testimony could not lawfully be used against the appellant, and without it, the prosecution's case collapsed.
Testimony recorded while an accused is absconding can only be used against him later, without a chance to cross-examine, if a court formally recorded, at that earlier stage, that the specific legal conditions for doing so were met. The passage of decades cannot substitute for a missing court order, and prosecutors must secure this finding at the time, not try to rely on it after the fact.
