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 a faction-ridden village in Kurnool district, Andhra Pradesh, long-running rivalry between two groups culminated in an ambush on 30 October 1994 in which four men travelling to a police station (to comply with a bail condition) were killed by a mob using country-made bombs, sickles, and iron pipes. A trial court convicted several of the 47 accused of murder, but the Andhra Pradesh High Court later acquitted all of them, disbelieving the eyewitnesses as biased because they belonged to the rival faction. The State of Andhra Pradesh appealed the mass acquittal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had wrongly discarded the eyewitness testimony wholesale merely because the witnesses belonged to the opposing faction, noting that Indian law rejects the principle of "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything): a witness's evidence can still support conviction of some accused even if disbelieved regarding others. After carefully re-examining which specific accused were identified with definite weapons and overt acts by credible witnesses, the Court restored convictions under Section 302 IPC (with life imprisonment) for nine of the accused, including Pullagummi Kasi Reddy Krishna Reddy (A-13), who was found to have thrown the bomb that killed one victim, while upholding the acquittal of the remaining accused for whom no specific role was proved.
Courts must evaluate each accused's individual role and evidence rather than rejecting an entire eyewitness account just because the witness is affiliated with one side of a feud; partial acceptance of testimony against specific, clearly-identified accused is legally permissible even where the same testimony fails against others.
