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 appellant, a government bus driver, was convicted for causing a fatal accident in 2001 near Tuticorin by driving rashly and without caution, killing four people and injuring three others. The trial court convicted him under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to a modest fine and four months' imprisonment per count, and both the Sessions Court and the Madras High Court upheld the conviction on appeal/revision. He approached the Supreme Court arguing his identity as the driver was never conclusively proven and that an oncoming vehicle was actually at fault.
The Supreme Court held that multiple eyewitnesses, including an injured survivor, had consistently identified the appellant as the driver, and three courts below had concurrently found this proven on the evidence, leaving no basis for the Supreme Court to re-appreciate those factual findings. The Court also rejected the claim that an oncoming vehicle caused the accident, since witnesses uniformly attributed it to the appellant's own rash and negligent driving. Citing precedent on sentencing for fatal road accidents, the Court emphasized deterrence as a key sentencing goal for professional drivers and found the punishment already imposed (a modest fine and four months per count) was, if anything, lenient given four deaths occurred, so there was no case to reduce it further. The appeal was dismissed and the appellant was directed to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence.
Courts rarely re-examine factual findings on identity or fault that have already been concurrently upheld by the trial court, an appellate court, and a High Court; and in fatal road-accident cases, courts favour deterrent sentencing for professional drivers rather than leniency, even years after the incident.
