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 moreGeetha, married to Vasant for about eight years, was allegedly harassed for dowry by her husband and his family. One evening, her mother-in-law allegedly poured kerosene on her and set her on fire; Geetha died of her burn injuries a week later. The trial court acquitted both the husband and mother-in-law, but the High Court reversed the acquittal and sentenced both to life imprisonment. The husband and mother-in-law then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court carefully examined Geetha's dying declaration (recorded by both a doctor and a government official) and found it consistently named only the mother-in-law as the person who poured kerosene and set her alight: the husband was never implicated in her own words; in fact, she stated he had tried to douse the fire with water. The Court upheld the mother-in-law's conviction since the dying declaration reliably established her role. However, it acquitted the husband, holding that mere presence in the house, failure to take his wife to hospital, or fleeing the scene afterward did not amount to proof of "common intention" under Section 34 IPC: the prosecution needed to show he actually shared the intention to kill, which it failed to do.
Being present at or near a crime scene, or even failing to act to prevent harm, is not by itself enough to convict someone of "common intention" murder. The law requires actual proof that the person shared the intent to commit the crime, not just an inference drawn from omission or family relationship.
