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 appellant, an Assistant Executive Engineer in the Public Health Engineering Department, was accused of demanding and accepting Rs. 5,000 as illegal gratification from a retiring employee for issuing a "No Objection Certificate" needed to process his pension and retiral benefits, following a Lokayukta trap operation. The trial court acquitted him, finding the prosecution had failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe, and also finding the sanction to prosecute invalid. On the State's appeal, the Karnataka High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Supreme Court reiterated the well-settled principles governing appeals against acquittal: the presumption of innocence is reinforced by an acquittal, the accused gets the benefit of reasonable doubt, and an appellate court should not interfere merely because it might take a different view if the trial court's view was a reasonable, possible one. Reviewing the trial court's reasons (delay in lodging the complaint, doubts about the appellant's presence at the location on the date of the alleged demand, inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses, and an alternative explanation that the money was for diesel purchase, not a bribe), the Court found the trial court's acquittal was not perverse or unreasonable, and that the High Court had wrongly substituted its own view without identifying any real infirmity in the trial court's reasoning. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's conviction, and restored the trial court's order of acquittal.
An appellate court cannot overturn a trial court's acquittal simply because it would have weighed the evidence differently: it must show the acquittal itself was unreasonable or based on a clear error, since the presumption of innocence is reinforced, not weakened, once a trial court has already acquitted the accused.
