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 moreRamesh and five family members were convicted in 1995 for offences arising from a violent clash between two groups of the same family on 01.01.1993, which had produced two cross-FIRs tried separately by different courts. The other group's case (arising from the cross-FIR) ended in 2019 with the accused being acquitted on some charges and given probation after the families reached a settlement. In Ramesh's case, the Rajasthan High Court in 2023 acquitted him of the more serious charge (Section 307 IPC, attempt to murder) but upheld his conviction under Sections 326, 325, 452 and 323 IPC, declining to extend probation despite noting the settlement, on the ground that the injuries were serious enough that probation would send the wrong message.
The Supreme Court found that the two criminal cases were genuine cross-cases stemming from the same family clash on the same day, and that the other side's accused had already received probation after a settlement in their (parallel) case. Given that Ramesh, about 70 years old with no other criminal antecedents, had already been acquitted of the gravest charge, had served over four months of the six-month sentence, and that a settlement existed between the families, the Court held there was no reason to deny him the same benefit of probation extended to the other group. Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution along with Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the Court granted him probation, directing him to furnish a personal bond and maintain peace and good conduct.
Courts strive for parity and fairness between parties to the same underlying dispute. Where one side to a "cross-case" arising from a single incident has received a lenient sentencing benefit like probation, the other side, absent aggravating factors, has a strong claim to the same treatment, especially where the parties have since reconciled.
