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 moreKrishnabai married in May 1989 and went to live with her husband's family, where her mother-in-law (the appellant, Tarabai) and sister-in-law allegedly subjected her to repeated cruelty and dowry demands for not bringing enough gold, cash, and new clothes. Krishnabai's mother visited multiple times and witnessed mistreatment firsthand. On 23 March 1990, within a year of the marriage, Krishnabai was found dead in her marital home with 100% burn injuries. Both the mother-in-law and sister-in-law were convicted by the trial court; the Bombay High Court later acquitted the sister-in-law but upheld the mother-in-law's conviction.
The Supreme Court dismissed Tarabai's appeal, rejecting each of her arguments in turn. It found no real delay in filing the FIR given that the family first rushed Krishnabai to hospital and only filed the report after the post-mortem confirmed the cause of death; it found no merit in the claim that a torn, unsigned draft statement undermined the prosecution's case; and it held that the mother's evidence was credible and consistent. Because Krishnabai died of unnatural causes within seven years of marriage amid evidence of dowry-related cruelty, the statutory presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act (read with Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC) operated against the accused. The Court also noted that the best witness to rebut the allegations, the appellant's own husband, was never called by the defence. It upheld the conviction and the seven-year sentence.
Where a woman dies an unnatural death within seven years of marriage and there is evidence of dowry-related cruelty beforehand, the law presumes the death was a dowry death unless the accused can convincingly rebut it, and failing to produce an obviously relevant defence witness can itself count against the accused.
