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 respondent, Ram Swaroop @ Barkat, was accused of taking the complainant's son Dinesh from his home in 1998 on the pretext of watching a movie; the boy's dead body, with gunshot wounds, was found the next morning, leading to an FIR under Section 302 IPC (murder) against the respondent and three others. The Trial Court acquitted him of murder but convicted him under Section 364 IPC (kidnapping/abduction with intent to murder) even though he had only been formally charged under Section 302, relying on Section 222 CrPC which allows conviction for a "minor offence" within a major charge. The Allahabad High Court set aside this conviction, holding that Section 364 is not a "minor offence" relative to Section 302 and cannot be substituted without a proper charge, prompting the State of Uttar Pradesh to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that a "minor offence" under Section 222 CrPC requires the two offences to be "cognate", sharing common main ingredients, and not merely carry a lesser punishment. Applying its precedent in Shamnsaheb M. Multtani, the Court found that Section 364 IPC (kidnapping/abduction) and Section 302 IPC (murder) are separate and distinct offences with different essential ingredients, and cannot be treated as cognate offences; therefore a conviction under Section 364 could not stand where the accused was only charged under Section 302. The Court also noted there was no evidence in the complaint, chargesheet, or witness testimony that the respondent had forcibly taken or abducted the deceased: the key prosecution witness's claim was based on hearsay. Finding no merit in the State's appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's acquittal and dismissed the appeal.
A person can only be convicted of an offence that is genuinely "cognate" (sharing the same essential ingredients) with the one they were formally charged with; courts cannot substitute a conviction for a legally distinct offence, like abduction in place of murder, merely because the punishment is lesser, as doing so would deprive the accused of a fair opportunity to defend against that specific charge.
