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 worked as a domestic servant in the home of a railway police employee in Haryana and was accused of kidnapping the family's 3½-year-old son in 1996, leaving ransom-demand letters, and later being arrested in Delhi with the child in his custody. The trial court acquitted him (and a co-accused) citing discrepancies in witness testimony and doubts about the letters, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted him, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reviewed the settled principles governing an appellate court's power to reverse an acquittal, including the double presumption of innocence that normally favours an acquitted accused. It found the discrepancies relied on by the trial judge, such as minor variations in witness accounts of timing and the father's name, were trivial and did not go to the root of the prosecution's case, while the ransom letters were properly proved through the magistrate before whom the appellant had admitted writing them, a claim he never effectively challenged in cross-examination. Concluding that the High Court's reversal of the acquittal was well-reasoned and did not rest merely on taking a different view of the same evidence, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal.
An appellate court can overturn a trial court's acquittal, but only based on substantial reasons showing the acquittal was clearly wrong: however, an accused's claim that a key piece of evidence (such as a confession or letter) was coerced carries little weight if it is never put to the relevant witnesses in cross-examination, since unchallenged testimony is generally treated as accepted.
