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 case arose from a 1992 dispute in Madhya Pradesh over use of a water channel ("Medh"), which escalated into a violent group clash involving axes, spears ("Bhala"), and sticks ("Lathi"), leaving several people injured. The accused were convicted by the trial court and the conviction (with a sentence reduction from seven to five years) was upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Two sets of appellants brought connected appeals to the Supreme Court, one as of right, and one after being granted leave on a pending Special Leave Petition, challenging their convictions and seeking either acquittal or a further reduction in sentence, including a claim of acting in private defence.
The Supreme Court independently reviewed the evidence and found no infirmity in the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court, holding that the eyewitness testimony of the injured persons was credible and consistent. It rejected the private-defence argument, noting that this was a question of fact already decided against the appellants by two courts below, and that the evidence showed the appellants were the aggressors who used deadly weapons. The Court held that the High Court's reduction of sentence from seven to five years was already a fair and justified relief, so there was no basis to reduce it further, and found no ground for acquittal either.
The Supreme Court will generally not re-appreciate evidence to overturn concurrent factual findings of a trial court and High Court, especially regarding claims like private defence, unless there is a genuine legal infirmity: a third round of appeal is not a routine opportunity to re-litigate settled facts.
