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 was convicted by a trial court under Section 376 (rape) and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly raping the prosecutrix in December 1999 and later intimidating her, and was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment along with a fine. A co-accused, charged with intimidation, was acquitted by the High Court, while the appellant's own appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The appellant challenged his conviction before the Supreme Court, pointing to a seven-month delay in lodging the FIR (filed only when the prosecutrix was found pregnant) as casting doubt on the prosecution's case.
The Supreme Court examined the unexplained seven-month delay in filing the FIR, noting the complaint surfaced only after the prosecutrix's pregnancy became apparent, which raised a reasonable doubt about the prosecution's version under the circumstances of this case. On the intimidation charge, the Court found a further defect: the charge as actually framed against the appellant related only to an alleged act of intimidation on 10 July 2000 (jointly with a co-accused who was later acquitted of that charge), not to the December 1999 incident the trial court had relied on, meaning the appellant was effectively convicted of intimidation without a proper corresponding charge being framed against him for that conduct. Given these evidentiary and procedural infirmities, the Court held it would be unsafe to sustain the conviction and granted the appellant the benefit of the doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and since the appellant was on bail, his bail bonds stood discharged.
An unexplained, significant delay in lodging a complaint, especially where it surfaces only once a consequence like pregnancy becomes visible, combined with a mismatch between the charge actually framed and the conduct relied on for conviction, can be enough to entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt on appeal.
