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 moreAfter a three-wheeler hit a scooter and sped off, the injured scooterist and four others, including the eventual victim and his father and brother, chased down the vehicle and confronted its three occupants. During the resulting altercation, the appellant picked up an iron rod and struck one of the pursuing group on the head; the victim died five days later. The trial court convicted the appellant of murder under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment (the other two co-accused were acquitted), and the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld this. The Supreme Court had granted limited leave only on the narrow question of whether the offence was really murder or the lesser offence of culpable homicide.
The Supreme Court found there was no motive, premeditation, or intention to kill, rather, the victim's group had itself pursued and confronted the accused (who had fled after the earlier accident), and it was during that heated, unplanned altercation that a single blow was struck with an iron rod. Because the injury was inflicted without premeditation, in a sudden quarrel where the victim's side were effectively the aggressors, and the accused acted under sudden provocation depriving him of self-control, the Court held the case fell within Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, converting the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I (since a single blow to a vital body part likely to cause death was deliberately inflicted). The life sentence was set aside and replaced with 7 years' rigorous imprisonment, with the earlier fine and default sentence left unchanged.
Even a fatal blow struck with a dangerous weapon may not amount to murder if it happens in a sudden, unplanned altercation without premeditation, especially where the deceased's own group provoked the confrontation; such cases can fall under the lesser offence of culpable homicide instead of murder, significantly reducing the punishment.
