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 moreA man named Shabu was shot dead and his brother Riyazuddin was injured while taking cattle for grazing, allegedly by three accused including Raja, over an exhortation to kill them. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC based substantially on the eyewitness testimony of the complainant Imamuddin, the deceased's other brother. On appeal, the Allahabad High Court doubted Imamuddin's presence at the scene and the trustworthiness of his evidence, citing his unusual conduct as a practising lawyer and municipal member, and also noted the complete absence of bullet holes in the deceased's clothing despite a chest-penetrating gunshot wound, and acquitted all the accused. The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed this acquittal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined the same inconsistencies the High Court had relied upon, the witness's implausible conduct, his unexplained absence of urgency in helping the injured, and the physical improbability of a gunshot wound with no corresponding holes in the clothing, and agreed that these genuinely raised a reasonable doubt about the prosecution's version. The Court held that the High Court's view did not suffer from any serious or substantial error that would justify interference, since the extension of benefit of doubt was properly reasoned. The appeals were accordingly dismissed, affirming the acquittal.
An appellate court will not re-open an acquittal merely because the State disagrees with it: it will only interfere if the reasoning below reveals a serious legal error, and physical/forensic inconsistencies (such as missing bullet holes) can be decisive in creating reasonable doubt even against seemingly direct eyewitness testimony.
