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 moreDuring the night of 24-25 November 2000, the appellant and his brother allegedly set fire to the complainant's house while the complainant's teenage son, Sandeep, was home alone; before Sandeep could free the family's cattle, two buffaloes and their offspring died from burn injuries, and Sandeep himself suffered burns. The Trial Court convicted the appellant and his brother under Sections 436 (mischief by fire), 429 (killing/maiming cattle), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, sentencing each to seven years' imprisonment, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed this; a related appeal by the co-accused brother had already been dismissed by the Supreme Court earlier. The appellant then sought a reduction of sentence, citing a subsequent village panchayat settlement under which Rs. 9 lakh had been paid in compensation to the complainant's family, and noting he had already served about three years and three months in custody.
The Supreme Court noted that although the complainant's family had not formally appeared in court to confirm receipt of the Rs. 9 lakh compensation despite notice, the payment following the village panchayat's decision was a relevant subsequent development, combined with the fact that the offence itself was 18 years old by the time of this appeal. Balancing these factors, the Court did not disturb the conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment from seven years to five years, partly allowing the appeal on sentence alone. The appellant was directed to surrender to custody within six weeks to serve the remainder of the reduced sentence, failing which he would be taken into custody, and a copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Trial Court.
Even where a criminal conviction for a serious offence is upheld, courts may moderate the sentence (though not the conviction itself) in light of genuine mitigating factors such as a community-level compensation settlement with the victim's family and the long passage of time since the offence, but such relief affects only the length of punishment, not guilt.
