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 moreThe appellant's daughter died an unnatural death at her matrimonial home in June 2017. Though a charge-sheet was filed only against a third person for abetment of suicide, evidence given at trial by the appellant and her son suggested her son-in-law (the deceased's husband) was the only person present at the scene and may have been involved. The trial court summoned the son-in-law as an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC, but the Allahabad High Court quashed that summoning order on a petition filed by him.
The Supreme Court held that the trial court's order was a careful, reasoned application of the Constitution Bench test laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, namely that evidence must be strong enough that, if unrebutted, it would support conviction. The Court found the evidence (the son-in-law being the sole occupant with the deceased, his haste in conducting the burial, his refusal to undergo a narco-analysis test, and unexplained injury marks) met that threshold, and that the High Court had wrongly substituted its own view for the trial court's reasoned assessment in just a few cursory sentences. The Supreme Court restored the summoning order, allowing the appeal and setting aside the High Court's judgment.
Courts can summon an additional person to stand trial mid-proceeding under Section 319 CrPC even if investigators did not originally charge them, so long as evidence emerging at trial is strong enough to indicate guilt if left unrebutted, and a High Court cannot casually override such a well-reasoned trial court order.
