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 deceased, Manoj, was a helper on a truck; when his own truck and its driver were detained by police after a quarrel, he was asked to travel onward with his money to the truck owner in a second truck driven by the appellants, Nizam and his companion. Three days later, Manoj's body was found in a field under suspicious circumstances, and the appellants were convicted of his murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, a conviction that was upheld by the Rajasthan High Court based essentially on the "last seen together" circumstance (that the appellants were the last people seen with Manoj before his death).
The Supreme Court held that where the time gap between the deceased being "last seen" with the accused and the discovery of the body is substantial, here, about three days, the last-seen theory alone becomes unsafe to rely on unless corroborated by other evidence, since the possibility of intervening events or other persons cannot be ruled out. The Court noted serious gaps in the investigation: no recovery of the murder weapon or the allegedly stolen money, no identification of the body, an unexplained injury, and a false complaint by a key prosecution witness. Since the chain of circumstantial evidence was not complete and more than one inference was reasonably possible, the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The Court therefore set aside the conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, allowed the appeal, and ordered the appellants to be released.
In cases built on circumstantial evidence, "last seen together" is not enough by itself to convict someone of murder: the longer the gap before the body is found, the more the prosecution needs solid, independent corroborating evidence, or the accused must get the benefit of the doubt.
