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, a Zilla Parishad employee handling pension and provident fund files, allegedly demanded a bribe from the brother of a retired employee to speed up the clearance of her pension and GPF dues. A trap was laid by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, and tainted currency notes were recovered from the appellant's pocket after he accepted them. The trial court acquitted him, giving him the benefit of the doubt because the complainant partly turned hostile during cross-examination. The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) reversed the acquittal on the State's appeal and convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction. It held that the trial court had erred in granting the benefit of doubt by over-relying on one inconsistent line in a three-year-late cross-examination, while ignoring that the complainant's detailed examination-in-chief was independently corroborated by two panch witnesses and other documentary evidence (panchnamas, the complaint, and witness testimony). The Court reiterated that once recovery of tainted money is proved, Section 20 of the Act raises a statutory presumption of guilt that the accused must rebut, and that an appeal against acquittal can legitimately be allowed where the trial court's reasoning does not hold up, rather than it being untouchable merely because "two views were possible."
A single contradictory answer, especially one appearing years after the main testimony, does not automatically wipe out an otherwise corroborated bribery case; once bribe money is recovered from the accused, the law presumes guilt unless the accused can disprove it.
