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 three accused were convicted by the trial court for the murder and robbery of a taxi passenger, Jagdeesha, and sentenced to life imprisonment, based on circumstantial evidence: the deceased being last seen with the accused, recovery of his car, and recovery of jewellery/a watch from the accused's homes. The High Court overturned the convictions and acquitted all three accused, finding the prosecution's evidence riddled with contradictions. The State of Karnataka appealed to the Supreme Court against the acquittal.
The Supreme Court examined each strand of circumstantial evidence and agreed with the High Court's findings of serious inconsistency: the evidence on recovery of the car was contradictory (one witness said it was left for repair, another said it was found abandoned and seized on a different date), and the evidence on recovery of the stolen jewellery/watch also conflicted as to the date of recovery and identification. The "last seen" evidence by itself was not sufficient to sustain a conviction given these other doubts. Applying the settled principle that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless there is serious and substantial error, the Supreme Court found no such infirmity in the High Court's reasoning and dismissed the State's appeals, upholding the acquittal.
When a case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be proven consistently and without contradiction; courts will not restore a conviction over an acquittal just because some suspicious circumstances exist if the supporting evidence (such as contradictory recovery dates or witness accounts) is genuinely unreliable.
