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 moreFollowing a long-standing family enmity, the appellants and two others were convicted of murdering a young man, Badan Pal, who was shot and attacked with weapons at a tube-well shed where he used to study at night. The trial court convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC (common intention) and sentenced them to life imprisonment, a conviction the Allahabad High Court upheld. Two of the convicts, Vijendra Singh and Mahendra Singh, appealed to the Supreme Court: Vijendra Singh additionally claiming he had been a juvenile (about 16 years old) on the date of the offence.
The Supreme Court examined the evidence on common intention and rejected Mahendra Singh's argument (based on the absence of a lathi-blow injury on the deceased) that he deserved acquittal, holding that common intention can be inferred from the circumstances: he had accompanied armed co-accused to the scene with a lathi, which was enough to sustain his conviction; his appeal was accordingly dismissed. For Vijendra Singh, the Court accepted an unchallenged report establishing he was a juvenile (about 16 years 3 months old) on the date of the offence, and applying the Juvenile Justice Act's provisions as interpreted in prior precedent, held that since he had already been in custody longer than the maximum period a juvenile could be held in a special home, he must be released from custody forthwith even while his conviction stood. The appeals were disposed of accordingly: one dismissed, the other allowing the appellant's release due to his juvenility.
A person's precise age at the time of an offence can decisively change the consequences even where the underlying conviction is upheld: a genuine juvenile-status claim, once established by an unchallenged report, triggers release once the time already served exceeds what a juvenile could lawfully be detained for, regardless of the severity of the offence.
