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 was convicted of murder by the Sessions Court, Almora, for fatally assaulting a neighbour with a sickle, based on the eyewitness testimony of the victim's neighbour (PW-1) and his wife and daughter (PW-4 and PW-2). The Uttarakhand High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted him, finding inconsistencies among the eyewitnesses. The State appealed to the Supreme Court against this acquittal.
The Supreme Court examined the eyewitness testimonies and found significant contradictions, conflicting accounts of who reached the scene first, a large discrepancy in the stated distance between the two houses, and PW-4's admitted weak eyesight. It also noted that PW-1, who claimed to be the sole witness to the actual assault, was contradicted by the other two witnesses who said the accused had already fled by the time they arrived. Applying the settled principle that appellate courts should not disturb an acquittal unless the High Court's view is perverse or impossible, the Court found no such perversity and dismissed the State's appeal, upholding the acquittal.
When eyewitness accounts in a criminal case contain material, unresolved inconsistencies, the benefit of the doubt must go to the accused, and an appellate court will not overturn an acquittal merely because another view of the evidence was also possible.
