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 family land dispute between two brothers, Sanatan Pradhan and Brundaban, escalated into a violent attack in which Sanatan's sons, including the appellant, Upendra Pradhan, allegedly attacked Brundaban and his children with axes and lathis, resulting in a death. The trial court (Additional Sessions Judge) acquitted the accused, but the Orissa High Court, on the State's appeal, reversed the acquittal and convicted Upendra Pradhan under Section 302/34 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment. Upendra Pradhan then appealed to the Supreme Court, raising three grounds: that the High Court wrongly overturned a reasoned acquittal, that key witnesses were "interested" and unreliable, and, for the first time before the Supreme Court, that he was a juvenile (under 18) at the time of the 1993 offence.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong to interfere with the trial court's acquittal merely by re-appreciating the same evidence and preferring the witnesses' testimony, without the kind of compelling reasons needed to upset an acquittal. It rejected the argument that testimony of related/interested witnesses should be disregarded, noting such witnesses are often reliable since they are unlikely to shield the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent relative. On the fresh plea of juvenility, the Court accepted a school certificate showing the appellant was about 17 years, 1 month and 20 days old at the time of the offence, and held this plea could be raised at any stage under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000; following its own precedents (Ajay Kumar v. State of M.P., Hakim v. State, Lakhan Lal v. State of Bihar), it noted the appellant had already spent about 8 years in custody, exceeding the 3-year maximum detention period for juveniles under Section 15 of the Act, and on that basis alone the conviction could not stand. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant (already on bail since 2014) had his bail bonds discharged.
A claim of having been a juvenile at the time of an offence can be raised at any stage of proceedings, even for the first time before the Supreme Court years later, and if proven, it caps how long the person can be detained, overriding even a life sentence imposed as an adult.
