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 moreAn FIR was registered over a murder in Agra, and the police chargesheet did not name the appellant as an accused. During the trial, based on the testimony of a single witness, the trial court used its power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon the appellant as an additional accused. The appellant's challenge to this summoning order was dismissed by the High Court, leading to this appeal.
The Supreme Court found that both the trial court and the High Court had failed to correctly apply the legal principles governing Section 319, as laid down in the Constitution Bench ruling in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and reaffirmed in Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan. The trial court's order also contained factual errors: it wrongly recorded that the prosecution (rather than the complainant) had filed the application, and it overstated the role attributed to the appellant beyond what the witness had actually said. The Court clarified that the real issue was not whether Section 319 power existed, but whether the trial court had properly completed the higher standard of scrutiny the law requires before invoking it. It therefore set aside both the trial court's and the High Court's orders, and sent the question back to the trial court to reconsider afresh whether to summon the appellant, applying the correct legal standard.
The power to add a new accused mid-trial is extraordinary and must be exercised only on strong, cogent evidence after careful scrutiny, not casually or based on a misreading of who filed an application or what a witness actually said; courts must get both the facts and the correct legal test right before invoking this power.
