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, an Army soldier home on leave, was stabbed twice by a man named Mukesh during an altercation that began over a volleyball match, and alleged that Mukesh's brother Neeraj held him down during the attack while others allegedly stood by armed with sticks and one issued a threat. Police investigations by three different officers found no evidence against the other alleged participants, but during the trial against Mukesh, the appellant (as the key eyewitness) applied under Section 319 CrPC to have the others summoned as additional accused. The Sessions Judge allowed this, but the accused successfully challenged that order before the High Court in revision, which held there was insufficient material to summon them.
The Supreme Court restored the Sessions Judge's order, holding that the trial court's satisfaction, based on the appellant's sworn testimony naming the additional accused, met the higher legal standard required for summoning someone under Section 319 CrPC as laid down by a Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab. The Court held that a High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction over such an order should take a "hands-off" approach and not substitute its own assessment for a plausible view formed by the trial court, unless that view was arbitrary or unauthorized by law; here, the Sessions Judge's conclusion was a plausible one, so the High Court should not have interfered.
When a trial court decides, based on a witness's sworn evidence, to summon additional people to face trial alongside an existing accused, a higher court reviewing that decision must show restraint and not overturn it just because it might have weighed the evidence differently: interference is warranted only if the trial court's view was clearly implausible or unlawful.
