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 moreFollowing a free fight resulting in a death, a trial court had convicted several accused under provisions including Section 302 (murder) read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly). On appeal, the High Court acquitted most of the accused, downgraded others' convictions to lesser offences (like Sections 323/325, simple/grievous hurt), and altered the main accused Ramavtar's conviction from murder (Section 302/149) to the lesser offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II). The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court against these reductions and acquittals.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's acquittal of most of the co-accused, agreeing that given the nature of a free fight and each person's limited role, their acquittal was consistent with precedent (Kanwarlal v. State of M.P.) and did not warrant interference. However, regarding accused Ramavtar, the Court held the High Court erred in downgrading his offence to Section 304 Part II: he had struck the fatal blow with a Farsa (an axe-like weapon) on the deceased's head, a vital body part, and precedent establishes that even a single blow to a vital organ can sustain a murder-level culpability finding. Balancing the fact that it arose from a free fight (ruling out Section 302 itself) against the seriousness of a fatal blow to the head with a dangerous weapon, the Court held the correct conviction was the more serious Section 304 Part I (culpable homicide not amounting to murder, with knowledge the act was likely to cause death), not Part II. The Court therefore partly allowed the State's appeal only as to Ramavtar, enhancing his conviction and sentence to eight years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part I, while confirming the rest of the High Court's judgment regarding the other accused.
Even in a sudden "free fight" where the more serious charge of murder may not apply, striking a fatal blow with a dangerous weapon on a vital part of the body like the head will attract a more serious degree of culpable homicide (Section 304 Part I) rather than the lesser Section 304 Part II, which is reserved for cases involving only "knowledge" without the same degree of culpability.
