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 moreA thirteen-year-old boy who had gone out in the evening to deliver milk went missing after being seen cycling off with the appellant around 9 PM; his body was found the next morning hidden in a heap of fodder, with the post-mortem showing death by strangulation. The appellant was convicted of murder and destruction of evidence by the trial court based on circumstantial evidence, including the "last seen together" theory and recoveries made on his disclosure statement, and the High Court upheld the conviction. The appellant challenged this before the Supreme Court, arguing the recovery was planted, witnesses were unreliable, and the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete.
The Supreme Court held that while "last seen together" is a weak form of evidence on its own, it becomes strong when coupled with other circumstances: here, the short time gap between the last sighting and recovery of the body, an established motive (a prior dispute over milk payments), the appellant's unexplained absconding, and the recovery of the bicycle and milk can traceable to the witness. The Court noted the accused owed an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act for what happened after he was last seen with the deceased, and he offered none. Minor omissions in the FIR and non-examination of one seizure witness did not break the chain of circumstances. Finding all links in the chain complete and pointing only to the appellant's guilt, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.
In circumstantial-evidence cases, being the last person seen with a victim shortly before death, combined with an unexplained absence, a motive, and corroborating recoveries, can be enough to sustain a murder conviction: the accused cannot simply stay silent and expect the benefit of doubt once such a chain is established.
