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 respondents were tried for kidnapping and rape-related offences under the IPC but were acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kannauj. The State of U.P. sought leave to appeal against the acquittal before the Allahabad High Court, which rejected the application in a single-line order stating simply that the trial judge's view was not unreasonable, without discussing the facts, submissions, or evidence. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the High Court's order was unreasoned and legally unsustainable.
The Supreme Court held that a High Court deciding whether to grant leave to appeal under Section 378(3) CrPC must apply its mind to whether a prima facie case or arguable points exist, and must record reasons for its decision, relying on its earlier ruling in State of Maharashtra vs. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar. Examining the High Court's order, the Court found it disclosed a total non-application of mind since it neither set out the facts, nor the parties' submissions, nor any reasoning for refusing leave. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the High Court's order was set aside, with the matter remanded for the High Court to decide the leave application afresh, on its own merits and without being influenced by any observations in the Supreme Court's order.
A court rejecting a request for leave to appeal against an acquittal cannot do so with a bare, unreasoned order: it must engage with the facts and explain why leave is being refused, or its order risks being set aside for non-application of mind.
