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 moreIn 1984, following personal rivalry, the appellant Rameshwar attacked the victim with an axe outside his home while several other men, including the appellant Balaram, were present armed with rifles. The victim was shot and died from his injuries. The trial court convicted Rameshwar and Balaram of murder with the aid of Section 34 IPC (common intention), while acquitting the other co-accused for lack of clear evidence, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld this conviction. Both convicted men appealed to the Supreme Court; Rameshwar died while the appeal was pending, abating his part of the case.
The Supreme Court examined inconsistencies in witness accounts about exactly who fired which gunshot, but found that the victim's wife's original complaint (corroborated by two other eyewitnesses) consistently placed Balaram at the scene, armed with a rifle, and firing at the victim. The Court held that even if there was some uncertainty about whose shot was fatal, Section 34 IPC allows conviction of all participants acting in furtherance of a shared common intention to kill, so Balaram's presence, his weapon, and his coordinated action with Rameshwar were sufficient to sustain his murder conviction regardless of precisely whose bullet caused death. The Court distinguished his case from a co-accused who was acquitted because no evidence specifically placed a gunshot wound on the victim traceable to him. The appeal was dismissed as against Balaram (who was ordered to surrender within six weeks), and dismissed as abated with respect to the deceased Rameshwar.
Under the law of "common intention" (Section 34 IPC), a person who participates in a joint criminal attack with a shared intent to kill can be convicted of murder even if it cannot be proven precisely whose individual act caused the fatal injury: participation and shared intent are enough.
