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 husband, Namdev Sonavane, died after being allegedly beaten with iron rods and sticks by a group including the two respondents during a pre-existing land dispute, with accompanying casteist abuse. An FIR was registered under IPC provisions including murder and rioting, and under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) granted bail to the two respondents, reasoning that with six accused and only eight injuries on the body, it was unclear whose blow caused the fatal head injury, and that there was a time gap between the incident and the death. The complainant-widow appealed to the Supreme Court against the grant of bail.
The Court held that the High Court's reasoning was flawed: since offences of rioting and unlawful assembly were invoked, the prosecution was not required to individually pinpoint which accused caused which specific injury, all members of an unlawful assembly can be held liable for acts done in furtherance of its common object. The Court also found the High Court had overlooked that the postmortem showed multiple injuries, including one causing deep cerebral damage, and had itself acknowledged that the trial court would need to examine intention and knowledge: factors that undercut, rather than supported, bail. It therefore set aside the bail order, directed the respondents to surrender within four weeks, directed the trial to be completed within a year, and left them free to renew their bail plea once eyewitness and medical evidence is recorded at trial.
When multiple people are charged as an unlawful assembly in a fatal group assault, the inability to identify exactly whose individual blow was fatal is not, by itself, a valid ground for bail. Courts must weigh the medical evidence and the overall gravity of the offence rather than looking for injury-by-injury attribution at the bail stage.
