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 wife, Harjinder Kaur, died in February 1998, less than a year into the marriage, after allegedly consuming poison at her matrimonial home. Her family accused the appellant and his relatives of harassing her over dowry demands for a motorcycle and a fridge. The Trial Court convicted the appellant and three in-laws, but the High Court acquitted the brother-in-law and father-in-law while upholding the appellant's (husband's) conviction.
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed analysis of the dowry-death legal framework (Section 304B IPC, Section 498A IPC, and Sections 113A/113B of the Evidence Act), clarifying that the word "shown" in Section 304B should be read to mean "prove," and "deemed" should be read as "presumed", meaning the prosecution must first establish the foundational facts of a dowry death before the burden shifts to the husband. Examining the actual evidence, the Court found inconsistencies between the two key prosecution witnesses (the deceased's uncle and brother) regarding whether a panchayat had even been convened to discuss the alleged dowry demand, and noted both witnesses admitted no dowry demand was made before or at the time of marriage. Concluding the prosecution had failed to show, even on a preponderance of probability, that the deceased was treated with cruelty connected to dowry demands, the Court held the burden never shifted to the accused.
In dowry-death prosecutions, the presumption against the husband/in-laws only kicks in after the prosecution first proves the basic ingredients of cruelty connected to a dowry demand close to the death: inconsistent or vague witness testimony about dowry demands can be enough to prevent that presumption from ever arising.
