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 moreKodagali was the victim of a violent attack in February 2009 and lodged an FIR, but the trial (which concluded in 2013) ended in the accused's acquittal. Kodagali sought to appeal that acquittal to the Karnataka High Court as a "victim" under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): a provision added in December 2009, after the offence but before the acquittal. The High Court's approach to whether he could even bring such an appeal, and on what terms, was challenged before the Supreme Court.
Justice Lokur, writing the lead judgment, held that a victim's right to appeal under Section 372 CrPC is tied to the date of the acquittal order (not the date of the offence), so Kodagali's appeal, filed after the 2009 amendment came into force, was maintainable. He further held that a victim need not separately seek "leave to appeal" from the High Court before filing such an appeal. The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's orders, and remitted the matter for the High Court to hear Kodagali's appeal against the acquittal on its own merits. Justice Gupta agreed that the appeal was maintainable but wrote separately to disagree on the leave point, reasoning that a victim's right to appeal should not be treated more generously than a complainant's (who must seek special leave), so he would have required the victim to seek leave too. This left a genuine, unresolved split on that specific procedural sub-question, though it did not disturb the unanimous, final decision that Kodagali's appeal be heard by the High Court.
Crime victims (and their legal heirs) have an independent statutory right to appeal an acquittal, which is triggered by the date of the acquittal itself rather than the date of the offence: a significant and still-debated protection for victims in India's criminal justice system, though the precise procedural steps a victim must follow remained a point of genuine disagreement even among Supreme Court judges at this time.
