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 prosecutrix, said to be about 14 years old, went missing in 1994 and was later found living with the appellant in Dehradun; her father lodged an FIR alleging kidnapping. The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC, and the Uttarakhand High Court acquitted him of rape (Section 376) but upheld the kidnapping-related convictions, reasoning she may have been a minor. The appellant argued the prosecutrix had voluntarily accompanied him, married him at a registrar's office in Dehradun, and lived with him as husband and wife.
The Supreme Court noted two conflicting medical opinions on the prosecutrix's age (14 vs. 18 years) and held the benefit of doubt should go to the accused. More importantly, relying on the precedent in S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras, the Court held that even accepting she was between 16-18 years old, the evidence showed she left voluntarily, of her own will, was of an age to understand right from wrong, and was never "taken" or enticed by the appellant in the legal sense required for kidnapping. Since the High Court's own findings showed no coercion or lack of consent, the Court held the offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC were not made out, quashed the convictions, and acquitted the appellant.
A kidnapping charge under Sections 363/366 IPC requires proof that the accused actively "took" or enticed the minor away from lawful guardianship. If the evidence shows the young person left and stayed of their own free will and was old enough to understand her choices, the offence is not established merely because a guardian disapproved.
