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 moreIn May 1990, a young sweet-seller, Gajendra, was allegedly beaten to death by three persons after a dispute over payment at a village fair in Jharkhand (then Bihar). The trial court convicted the appellants in 1994 of murder and criminal conspiracy, sentencing them to life imprisonment; the Jharkhand High Court in 2023 modified the conviction to Section 302 read with 34 IPC (with an additional fine) while keeping the life sentence.
The Supreme Court found serious flaws in the prosecution's case: the initial FIR and a later "improved" report given by the informant gave conflicting versions of events, and two independent eyewitnesses named in that later report were never examined by the prosecution, instead, the defence called them, and they testified the accused were not present at the scene. The Court reaffirmed that a defence witness's testimony carries the same evidentiary weight as a prosecution witness's and cannot be discarded simply because the defence, not the prosecution, called them. Concluding that the conviction rested on a misreading and erroneous appreciation of evidence, with no credible evidence linking the accused to the crime, the Supreme Court acquitted both appellants and ordered their immediate release.
A criminal conviction cannot be sustained on an inconsistent or improved prosecution story, and courts must weigh defence witnesses' testimony on equal footing with the prosecution's, not dismiss it merely because it came from the defence side.
