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 moreTwo young men, Sunil Singh (26) and Shivu (22), died after their motorcycle was allegedly hit by a canter lorry near Sugur village in Karnataka in August 2013. Their legal representatives filed separate compensation claims before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, relying on the FIR, post-mortem reports, and a chargesheet against the lorry driver. The Tribunal dismissed both claims, and the Karnataka High Court affirmed, holding that the claimants had failed to prove the offending vehicle was actually involved in the accident.
The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Tribunal and High Court, noting that interference under Article 136 with concurrent factual findings is warranted only where the appreciation of evidence is perverse or wholly unsatisfactory, which was not the case here. The witnesses gave contradictory and improbable testimony (including a claim that the driver voluntarily confessed and revealed both vehicles' registration numbers to strangers), the spot mahazar was prepared days after the accident with no eyewitness basis, and, most critically, the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report found no damage whatsoever on the alleged offending vehicle, which was inconsistent with a collision severe enough to kill two people. While the Court reaffirmed that the standard in motor accident cases is only "preponderance of probabilities" (not proof beyond reasonable doubt) and that omitting a vehicle's registration number from the FIR is not fatal by itself, the claimants here failed to establish the vehicle's involvement through cogent and reliable evidence taken as a whole. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Even under the relaxed "preponderance of probabilities" standard applicable to motor accident compensation claims, claimants must still produce credible, consistent evidence linking the specific vehicle to the accident: sympathy for a tragic loss cannot substitute for proof, and physical evidence like an inspector's damage report can decisively undercut an otherwise emotionally compelling claim.
