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 moreFollowing a dispute over a damaged electric pole, 14 accused persons armed with an axe, iron pipes and a spear attacked the complainant's household, during which the complainant's brother, Unadbhai Desurbhai, died of his injuries. The trial court convicted all 14 accused of murder under Section 302 read with Section 149/34 IPC, but the Gujarat High Court acquitted most of them of the murder charge, holding there was no "unlawful assembly" or common object to kill, and convicted only one accused (who had not appealed) of murder, while upholding lesser convictions for causing hurt against the rest. The complainant, aggrieved by the acquittals, appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in concluding there was no unlawful assembly or common object, since the accused had collectively arrived armed and attacked the complainant's group, which was sufficient to establish an unlawful assembly under Section 141 IPC. However, examining the facts closely, the Court found no evidence that the group shared a common object to specifically cause death (as opposed to causing injury): the attack arose from a sudden flare-up over the pole dispute, not pre-existing enmity. The Court therefore held the remaining accused liable not for murder, but for voluntarily causing grievous hurt in furtherance of common object (Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC), and given that the accused had already served about 7.5 years and the incident was from 1998, sentenced them to time already served.
Being part of a group that commits an unlawful attack does not automatically make every member guilty of murder: the law requires proof that death, specifically, was the group's shared object or something they knew was likely, and courts will distinguish a sudden, poorly-planned brawl from a premeditated plan to kill.
