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 appellant was the complainant and a prosecution witness in a 2017 murder case in which his relative, Ammar, was shot dead, allegedly as part of a conspiracy hatched by persons already in jail for earlier crimes against the complainant's family. Based on his own statement and the testimony of two other witnesses, the complainant sought to have two more individuals (Rajendra and Mausam, alleged to have plotted the murder with the jailed accused) summoned as additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC. Both the trial court and the Allahabad High Court rejected the application, citing inconsistencies in the witnesses' accounts, absence of corroborating jail visitor records, and other discrepancies, so the complainant appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of both lower courts, directing that Rajendra and Mausam be summoned and tried as additional accused. It held that the trial court had applied an incorrect, overly strict standard at the Section 319 stage, treating minor inconsistencies (such as absence of jail records, discrepancies in FIR details, or plausibility of the complainant escaping injury) as disqualifying, when the correct legal test (per Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Neeraj Kumar v. State of UP) requires only "strong and cogent" evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt or a mini-trial. The Court found that the trial court had wrongly evaluated each inconsistency in isolation instead of assessing the cumulative weight of the sworn testimony of three witnesses (including the complainant), which it held was sufficient to meet the threshold for summoning.
The power to summon additional accused under Section 319 CrPC requires only "strong and cogent" evidence at a preliminary threshold, not a detailed credibility assessment or a mini-trial. Courts must weigh the cumulative effect of the evidence rather than disqualifying a summoning application over minor, individually-picked inconsistencies.
