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 appellants (parents-in-law of the deceased, Malathi) were tried along with their son (A-1) after Malathi was brutally killed with a weapon on the night of 8-9 December 2003, following a history of alleged dowry harassment and a complaint she had earlier sent to the Chief Minister's office. The trial court acquitted the appellants of murder and a special harassment law charge but convicted them under Section 498A IPC (cruelty), while convicting the son separately for murder; the High Court upheld this. The appellants, who were only concerned with the Section 498A conviction (the son's murder conviction had already attained finality and was not before this Court), appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined the evidence and noted that when police had earlier inquired into Malathi's complaint to the Chief Minister's office, neither she nor her parents had raised any complaint of dowry-related harassment at that time, undermining the dowry-harassment narrative against the appellants. The Court also noted that the couple had been living separately and the fatal incident occurred shortly after Malathi was brought back to the matrimonial home, with no evidence directly implicating the appellants in acts of cruelty. Finding the evidence on record "completely inadequate" to sustain the Section 498A charge against the appellants specifically, the Court held they were entitled to acquittal. It allowed the appeal, set aside their conviction and sentence, and acquitted them, discharging their bail bonds.
A conviction for cruelty under Section 498A requires evidence specifically implicating the individuals charged: courts will not sustain a conviction merely because a family member was separately found guilty of a graver offence, if the evidence particular to the accused in question (here, in-laws) is inadequate to establish their own role in harassment.
