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 appellants' husband/father died after being struck by a ground-levelling tractor while walking home at night in July 2004. An eyewitness testified that the deceased was walking on the footpath when the tractor, driven rashly and negligently, hit him. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded the family about Rs. 4,41,000 in compensation, but the Karnataka High Court overturned this, accepting the insurance company's theory, based only on the insurance company's own official's testimony, not the driver's, that the deceased had instead been unlawfully riding on the tractor's blade.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong to discard the Tribunal's finding, which was based on credible, independent eyewitness testimony and was supported by the FIR, in favour of a bare, unproven assertion from the insurance company's own witness. It noted that the tractor's driver-owner never testified and never even appealed the Tribunal's order, which undercut the insurance company's version of events. Since the Tribunal's conclusion was a reasonable view supported by reliable evidence, it was not open to the High Court to reverse it merely on conjecture and sweeping observations. The Court restored the Tribunal's compensation award of Rs. 4,31,000 with 6% annual interest, making the insurer and tractor owner jointly and severally liable, and allowed the appeal with no order as to costs.
Appellate courts should not overturn a trial tribunal's factual findings that are grounded in credible, independent eyewitness evidence simply by favouring unsupported assertions from an interested party (here, the insurer), especially when the person best placed to contradict the evidence (the driver) never testified or even challenged the original order.
