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 January 2004, a group of intruders broke into a family's house in a Muzaffarnagar village at midnight; during the ensuing confrontation, the respondent Satendra shot and killed Dharampal, one of the sons of the family, while the respondent Neetu was also identified as one of the intruders. The trial court convicted both respondents based on the eyewitness testimony of the deceased's father and two brothers, who identified them by torch and lantern light and named them immediately in the FIR. The Allahabad High Court acquitted both respondents, citing minor discrepancies in the witnesses' accounts and an inconclusive ballistic report.
The Supreme Court held that the discrepancies relied on by the High Court, such as differing accounts of whether the intruders' faces were covered, were minor and explainable given that the witnesses were "rustic villagers" reacting to a sudden, chaotic nighttime attack, and did not undermine their otherwise consistent identification of the accused, who were known to them as fellow villagers. It held that the FIR naming both accused immediately after the incident strongly corroborated the eyewitness accounts, and that an inconclusive ballistic match on recovered cartridges did not disprove the shooting. It restored the trial court's convictions under Sections 323, 450, 307 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC (giving benefit of the doubt only on the separate rioting charges), reinstating life imprisonment and other sentences, and ordered the respondents to surrender within four weeks.
Courts should not throw out consistent eyewitness testimony over minor, natural inconsistencies in describing a fast-moving, frightening incident: what matters is the overall reliability of the witnesses' account and how well it is corroborated by evidence like a promptly recorded FIR naming the accused.
