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 moreIn 1989, a man named Manmohan Ghosh was allegedly shot and stabbed to death near a railway bridge while cycling with his son and two nephews, amid a background of family land-dispute enmity. The trial court acquitted all six accused, finding the eyewitnesses' conduct suspicious and no weapons recovered. On appeal by the State, the High Court reversed course and convicted three of the accused (Nimai Ghosh, Sonachand Ghosh, and Sambal Ghosh) relying on the eyewitnesses' testimony. Those three appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court restored the acquittal, extensively surveying its own precedents on how courts should judge whether an eyewitness's post-incident conduct is "natural." It found the three eyewitnesses' behavior deeply implausible: none of them reported the murder to police for about 14 hours, none informed their own family despite one being the victim's son, and the body was left overnight at the scene without being taken to a hospital. The medical evidence also undercut the prosecution's story, only one gunshot wound (not two, as alleged) was found. With no weapons recovered and no forensic corroboration, the Court held the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and reinstated the trial court's acquittal.
When witnesses who claim to have watched a close relative being murdered behave in ways any ordinary, sensible person would not, such as not reporting it for hours or not calling for help, courts are entitled to treat their testimony as unreliable, however serious the crime alleged.
