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 1980, Siya Ram was allegedly shot dead by six named persons, including the appellant Ramvir, while walking with his son in a village in Uttar Pradesh. The Sessions Judge acquitted five of the six accused of all charges but convicted Ramvir alone under Section 302 IPC (murder) while acquitting him of the unlawful-assembly charge under Section 148/149 IPC. On the State not having appealed any of these acquittals, Ramvir's own appeal to the Allahabad High Court resulted in the High Court not only upholding his murder conviction but also additionally convicting him under Section 148/149 IPC: the very charge of which he had already been acquitted and which the State had never challenged.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to convict Ramvir under Section 148/149 IPC in an appeal filed by the accused himself, because his acquittal on that charge (like the acquittal of his five co-accused) had already attained finality in the absence of any State appeal; moreover, since all five other alleged members of the "unlawful assembly" had been acquitted, there was no factual basis left to convict Ramvir of being part of one. On the murder charge itself, the Court found the evidence insufficient: the trial judge had drawn an inference of guilt unsupported by any direct evidence, the ballistic report affirmatively showed the recovered cartridges could not have been fired from Ramvir's rifle, and the rifle itself had not been seized from the scene but was later voluntarily surrendered in court. Giving Ramvir the benefit of this doubt, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and acquitted him of all charges, directing his release unless wanted in another case.
An appellate court cannot enlarge an accused's conviction or revive an acquittal that has already become final simply because the accused filed his own appeal, and a conviction cannot stand where forensic evidence (like a ballistics report ruling out the accused's weapon) actively contradicts the prosecution's theory, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt.
