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 October 2002, police on patrol found the appellant travelling on a scooter carrying a country-made pistol loaded with live cartridges, along with two spare live cartridges. The Trial Court acquitted him of the more serious charges under the IPC but convicted him under Section 25(1AA) of the Arms Act (which deals with manufacture/sale/transfer of prohibited arms) and sentenced him to two years. On the State's appeal, the High Court enhanced this sentence to seven years while dismissing the appellant's own appeal against conviction.
The Supreme Court found that Section 25(1AA) was the wrong provision altogether, since there was no evidence the appellant had manufactured or dealt in prohibited arms: he was simply caught in possession of an unlicensed firearm and cartridges, which is squarely covered by Section 3 (licensing requirement) read with the lesser offence under Section 25(1B)(a). The Court therefore modified the conviction from Section 25(1AA) to Section 25(1B)(a), and since the appellant had already served about one-and-a-half years in custody, reduced his sentence to the period already undergone, ordering his bail bonds discharged. The appeals were thus partly allowed.
Being charged and convicted under the wrong specific provision of a law (here, a "manufacture/dealing" offence instead of a simple "unlicensed possession" offence) can be corrected even at the Supreme Court stage, and matters for sentencing: an accused should not remain punished under a charge the facts don't actually support.
