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 convicted under the Arms Act after police stopped a car driven by a third person (A-1) and found prohibited cartridges inside. One appellant (A-2, "Salim Shamsuddin Shaikh") was convicted purely because he was the car's registered owner, despite not being present at the scene. The other appellant (A-4, "Mohmed Rafiq Abdul Rahim Shaikh") was convicted because weapons and ammunition were found in a bungalow he was recorded as "occupying" in municipal records, even though he had been in judicial custody for about three months before the raid and was not physically present.
The Supreme Court set aside both convictions, holding that mere ownership of a vehicle or formal occupancy of a building, without proof of actual or constructive possession (knowledge and control), cannot sustain an Arms Act conviction. Relying on its earlier decision in Gunwantlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court held that constructive possession requires proof that the accused had knowledge of the prohibited item and some degree of control over it or the place where it was found. Since A-2 was never near the car and the prosecution showed no evidence of his knowledge or control, and A-4 was demonstrably in jail during the period the weapons were allegedly stashed in his house (with no proof he locked or controlled the relevant room), neither could be held in constructive possession. The joint-occupation liability provision (Section 35 of the Arms Act) also could not apply to A-4 since he was not in occupation of the premises at all during the relevant period. Both appeals were allowed and the convictions set aside.
Being the registered owner of a vehicle or the official occupant of a property on paper is not, by itself, enough to convict someone for illegal possession of weapons or contraband found there: the prosecution must prove the person actually knew about the item and had real control over it at the relevant time.
