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 July 1991, in a Madhya Pradesh village, the appellants allegedly surrounded the deceased, Bansilal, armed with a pistol, spears and lathis, and attacked him; the appellant Ramvilas was said to have fired a pistol shot, after which others struck Bansilal with spears, causing 26 injuries from which he died. Two relatives who tried to intervene were also injured. The trial court convicted the appellants (including Ramvilas) under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and related offences and sentenced them to life imprisonment, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence on appeal. Ramvilas and co-accused then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reviewed the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court, which rested on the testimony of six eyewitnesses, including two injured witnesses whose presence at the scene could not reasonably be doubted, corroborated by medical evidence showing the extensive injuries on the deceased. The Court held that evidence of injured witnesses deserves great weight and can only be discarded for very cogent reasons, none of which were shown here. It rejected the argument that Ramvilas's presence was doubtful merely because the pistol ("katta") was never recovered from him, noting that all eyewitnesses consistently described him carrying and firing it, and that he never claimed absence from the scene in his Section 313 CrPC statement. Finding the conviction based on proper appreciation of evidence and the concurrent findings not open to interference under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Court dismissed the appeals.
In India's appellate system, the Supreme Court will rarely re-open factual findings about guilt that two lower courts have already agreed on (concurrent findings), especially when based on consistent eyewitness and injured-witness testimony corroborated by medical evidence: the absence of a recovered weapon alone will not undo a conviction built on credible witness accounts.
