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 moreThis is the well-known "Saravana Bhavan" case. Accused No. 1, P. Rajagopal, the proprietor of the Saravana Bhavan hotel chain, had befriended a young woman (PW1) and her family, provided them financial help, and allegedly wanted to make her his third wife even though his second wife was alive. When PW1 instead married another man against Rajagopal's wishes, he and his associates (Accused Nos. 2-11) forcibly abducted PW1, her husband, and her family from their home in 2001, took them to a godown, and assaulted the husband before releasing them later that day. The trial court and the Madras High Court convicted Rajagopal and several co-accused under Sections 365 (abduction) and 352 (assault) IPC, while acquitting some other accused (including the drivers and one associate) on benefit of doubt; the convicted accused appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the evidence of the victim (PW1) and her mother (PW2) was consistent, cogent, and reliable, and had rightly been accepted by both courts below despite cross-examination; minor inconsistencies were inconsequential to the core facts of the abduction. The Court held that the acquittal of some co-accused (the drivers and one associate) on benefit of doubt did not undermine the strong evidence against the appellants who actively participated in forcibly taking the victims to the godown and assaulting the husband. Finding no illegality in the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court, the Supreme Court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeals.
Appellate courts give substantial weight to concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and High Court, especially where victim testimony is consistent and corroborated; the acquittal of some co-accused on benefit of doubt does not automatically dilute the case against others shown by cogent evidence to have actively participated in the crime.
