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 son-in-law's family was attacked at night: two people were shot dead and a third (a young injured witness, PW-2) had her throat slit with a razor. The attack arose from the appellant's strong opposition to her daughter's marriage to the victims' relative. The trial court had acquitted the appellant (while convicting four co-accused) due to doubts about her presence at the scene, but the Delhi High Court reversed her acquittal on appeal, convicting her and sentencing her to life imprisonment with no remission possible for 25 years.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's reversal of acquittal and the conviction, finding the evidence credible: an injured witness's testimony (entitled to high weight), the appellant's own daughter testifying against her (given special credibility, since a child would not ordinarily falsely implicate a parent), and recovery of blood-stained items following the appellant's own disclosure statement. The Court reaffirmed that minor, trivial inconsistencies in witness testimony, especially from a young witness who had suffered traumatic injury, do not undermine credibility on the core facts. However, the Court set aside the specific additional direction denying her any remission in sentence for 25 years, holding that since she was convicted with the aid of Section 34 (common intention) like the other co-accused, there was no special reason to single her out for harsher sentencing treatment, and the High Court had given no justification for doing so.
Appellate courts can reverse an acquittal and convict based on credible eyewitness and circumstantial evidence even where a trial court earlier doubted the accused's presence, but any extra, harsher sentencing condition (like denying remission eligibility) must be separately and specifically justified: it cannot simply be imposed without reasons, especially where co-accused convicted on the same basis are not treated the same way.
