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, a Revenue Inspector, was convicted in 2008 by a trial court for demanding and accepting a Rs. 2,000 bribe from a farmer (the complainant) to process his compensation claim for drought-damaged trees, and this conviction was upheld by the Telangana High Court in 2024. The appellant challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court, arguing that the standard "triple test" for trap cases (prior verification of the demand, use of a shadow witness, and a positive chemical (phenolphthalein) test on the accused's hands) was not satisfied, and that the complainant's own version of events was inconsistent.
The Supreme Court found serious, unexplained contradictions in the prosecution's evidence: the hand-wash test on the appellant came back negative, the complainant gave conflicting accounts (in examination-in-chief versus re-examination) about whether the appellant was even present when the bribe money was placed in his motorbike's bag, and the complainant's own wife (a defence witness) gave yet another version of the sequence of events. The Court held that, given these material contradictions, the prosecution had not proved the demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and that the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Act could not apply where the demand itself was not established. It set aside the conviction and gave the appellant the benefit of the doubt.
In bribery "trap" cases, courts require solid, consistent proof that a demand for money was actually made and knowingly accepted: a mere recovery of currency notes, without a clear and corroborated demand, is not enough to sustain a conviction.
