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 moreTwo men were murdered in Dindigul, Tamil Nadu in January 1997, allegedly in communal retaliation for an earlier murder in which one of the deceased had been suspected (though cleared). Eight people were tried; the trial court convicted Accused Nos. 1-4 (including the present appellants) of murder, unlawful assembly and criminal conspiracy, while acquitting Accused Nos. 5-8. The High Court upheld both the convictions of Accused Nos. 1-4 and the acquittal of Accused Nos. 5-8, and the convicted appellants brought the present appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that, in an appeal arising from a special leave petition, it would not re-appreciate evidence already assessed concurrently by the trial court and High Court unless the findings were "totally perverse", and no such error of law was shown here. It found the eyewitnesses' testimony (PW-2, PW-3, PW-4) was mutually corroborative on the appellants' presence and conduct at the crime scene, and accepted the High Court's detailed reasoning for why witnesses' delay in coming forward was natural given the communally tense atmosphere following the killings, rather than a mark of unreliability. Finding no legal infirmity in the High Court's analysis, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the convictions and sentences.
The Supreme Court generally will not second-guess concurrent factual findings of the trial court and High Court on witness credibility unless a clear legal error or perversity is shown; a delay by witnesses in reporting a crime is not automatically fatal to the prosecution's case if there is a credible explanation, such as fear in a volatile, tension-charged situation.
