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 and several others were accused of fatally assaulting a man named Guddu @ Shahjad with swords in Kota, Rajasthan, in 1998, inflicting 67 injuries on him. The trial court convicted the appellant and three co-accused, but on appeal the High Court acquitted the three co-accused (giving them the benefit of doubt because their case was similar to that of two other suspects who had never been convicted), while upholding the appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC alone. The appellant challenged his conviction before the Supreme Court, arguing that since his co-accused had been acquitted on similar evidence, he too deserved acquittal.
The Supreme Court held that the acquittal of co-accused on a benefit-of-doubt basis does not automatically entitle another accused to acquittal where there is independent, reliable evidence specifically establishing his own role. It found that two eyewitnesses, one of them an injured witness, had consistently and credibly testified that the appellant struck the first sword blow and continued the assault, a account corroborated by the extent and nature of the victim's 67 injuries and the post-mortem findings. Holding that this direct evidence was sufficient on its own to sustain the conviction regardless of what happened to the co-accused, the Court dismissed the appeal and cancelled the appellant's bail bond.
In a criminal trial, each accused's guilt is assessed on the evidence specific to them: the fact that co-accused were acquitted (rightly or wrongly) does not by itself entitle another accused to acquittal if there is clear, credible evidence establishing that particular person's own role in the crime.
