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 complainant's father and brother were killed and he himself was shot during a land-possession dispute, but police chargesheeted only 3 of the 11 named accused. During trial, the complainant's testimony implicated 8 more people, and an application under Section 319 CrPC was filed to summon them to face trial. Both the trial court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to summon 7 of those 8 persons, reasoning that the evidence against them was not strong enough.
The Supreme Court found that the trial court and High Court had wrongly applied a standard as strict as "proof beyond reasonable doubt" when deciding whether to summon the additional accused, when the correct test under Section 319 CrPC is only that there be strong and cogent evidence: more than a prima facie case, but short of what would be needed for conviction. Relying on the Constitution Bench ruling in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court held this erroneous approach vitiated the orders. It allowed the appeal in part, set aside both orders, and sent the Section 319 applications back to the trial court for fresh consideration under the correct legal standard, without expressing any opinion on the merits.
When a victim's own testimony names persons the police did not chargesheet, courts must apply the correct, calibrated standard under Section 319 CrPC (more than a prima facie case but less than proof of guilt) rather than an unreasonably high bar, getting this legal test wrong is itself a ground for the Supreme Court to send the matter back for fresh decision.
