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 moreIn February 2006, the accused Chhaakki Lal and his son Akhilesh allegedly opened fire on a family group walking to a field in Madhya Pradesh, killing four people including a three-year-old child, in front of an eyewitness (the child's grandmother). A trial court convicted both accused under Section 302 IPC and awarded the death penalty, treating it as a "rarest of rare" case. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, hearing a death reference, acquitted both accused, doubting the eyewitness's testimony and citing delay in sending the seized firearms for forensic examination. The State and a co-complainant appealed to the Supreme Court; Akhilesh died during the appeal's pendency and the proceedings against him abated.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had committed a serious error in disbelieving the sole eyewitness, Kesar Bai, whose testimony was corroborated by medical and ballistic evidence, and that minor inconsistencies in her description of the firearms (a rustic villager's imprecise terms) were not material contradictions. It reaffirmed that an investigating officer's omissions or delays (such as late dispatch of weapons to the forensic lab) cannot by themselves be used to discard an otherwise credible and cogent prosecution case. Finding that the High Court had acted on surmises and caused a serious miscarriage of justice by acquitting the accused in a quadruple-murder case, the Court restored the trial court's conviction of Chhaakki Lal under Section 302 IPC, but, given the long passage of time since the 2006 offence and the death of the co-accused, commuted the sentence from death to life imprisonment.
A credible eyewitness account corroborated by medical and forensic evidence cannot be discarded merely because of minor, non-material inconsistencies or because investigators were slow or sloppy in handling evidence; appellate courts will intervene when an acquittal is based on surmise rather than a fair reading of the record.
