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 moreAtma Ram Gupta, a Delhi Municipal Corporation Councillor, went missing in August 2002 after leaving home to visit the house of fellow Councillor Sharda Jain before attending a political rally; his body was later recovered from a canal. Nine people were charge-sheeted, and the trial court convicted several of them, including Sharda Jain, Raj Kumar and Rajender, for murder, criminal conspiracy, and destruction of evidence. The Delhi High Court affirmed the convictions, and three separate appeals by Sharda Jain, Rajender, and Raj Kumar reached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined the circumstantial evidence against each appellant separately. It found that Rajender had driven the car in which the deceased was last seen, that soil on the car's tyres forensically matched the crime scene, and that he offered no explanation for his movements: evidence sufficient to confirm his conviction for murder and destruction of evidence. Sharda Jain's conviction was similarly affirmed based on corroborated evidence. However, the Court held that the charge of criminal conspiracy was not properly established against either Sharda Jain or Rajender, since the High Court had not given adequate reasoning for it, though their actions still attracted liability under the "common intention" provision (Section 34 IPC) instead. Raj Kumar's appeal was allowed and he was acquitted entirely, as the evidence connecting him to the crime was found inadequate. Sharda Jain's and Rajender's bail bonds were cancelled and they were ordered back into custody to serve their sentences.
A conviction for an underlying offence like murder can survive even if a separate charge like criminal conspiracy fails for lack of reasoned proof: courts assess each charge and each co-accused's culpability independently rather than as a package deal; also, circumstantial evidence such as forensic soil-matching can be decisive even without eyewitnesses.
