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 neighbouring, closely related families in Tamil Nadu were in a long-standing boundary dispute. On 20.09.2014, when the deceased (Kaliyamurthy) insisted on fencing his property, his nephew (A-1, Senthil) and A-1's brother-in-law (A-2, Sivakumar, the appellant here) confronted him; A-1 struck the deceased's brother with a sickle-like tool, and A-2 then struck the deceased on the head with a wooden log, causing a skull fracture from which the deceased later died in hospital. Two other family members (A-3 and A-4) also allegedly attacked the deceased and his brother with sticks. The trial court and the Madras High Court convicted the accused, and Sivakumar (along with a co-appellant Senthil, whose connected appeal was decided together) approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined the medical and autopsy evidence and found no error in the High Court's conclusion that A-2 (Sivakumar) was guilty of culpable homicide for striking the fatal blow with a log after evidence suggested he intended to "finish off" the deceased; his conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) was upheld. However, considering that the incident arose from a sudden altercation between close relatives over a boundary dispute, that a log (not a lethal weapon) was used, and that only one blow was struck in the heat of the moment, the Court reduced A-2's sentence from 5 years' rigorous imprisonment to 3 years. For co-appellant A-1 (Senthil), his conviction under Section 294(b) IPC and Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC was found unsustainable, but his Section 324 IPC conviction was affirmed, with his sentence reduced to time already served.
Even where a culpable homicide conviction is upheld, sentencing courts must weigh mitigating factors (the relationship between parties, absence of premeditation, the nature of the weapon used, and whether the act was a single spontaneous blow) when deciding whether the punishment fits the circumstances of the offence.
