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 morePanna Lal, his brothers, and a fourth appellant were convicted of murdering Ramkunwarbai, the wife of their absent brother Shankar, with whom they had a land dispute, and of causing hurt to three other witnesses, in a 1995 incident in Madhya Pradesh. The trial court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court both convicted and sentenced them, relying on eyewitness testimony that the accused party attacked the complainant's group with lathis and a sword roughly 300 feet from the disputed land; the accused claimed they acted in self-defence to protect their crop and land.
The Supreme Court first addressed Appellant No. 4, whose unrebutted certificate showed he was a juvenile on the date of the offence; it declared him a juvenile, separated his case for the Juvenile Court, and held his sentence ineffective under Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice Act. For the remaining three appellants, the Court rejected the private-defence argument, agreeing with the prosecution that since the incident occurred roughly 300 feet away from the disputed land, no right of private defence could have arisen, and the severity and nature of the deceased's injuries (a fatally broken skull from a sharp weapon) supported the eyewitness account over the defence's version. The Court found no reason to differ from the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court and accordingly confirmed the conviction and sentence of Appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3, dismissing their appeal.
The right of private defence is only available to repel an imminent threat at the location of the confrontation: it cannot be claimed by a party that was never in physical proximity to the disputed property when the violence occurred; separately, a genuine and unrebutted claim of juvenility can still be given effect to even midway through a pending criminal appeal.
