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 moreDagadabai, the only daughter of one Rustum (a Muslim who died intestate owning agricultural land in Jalgaon district, Maharashtra), inherited the land as his sole heir and sued the respondent, who was in possession of it, for a decree of possession based on her title. The respondent denied her claim, asserting that he was Rustum's adopted son and had inherited the land himself, and alternatively claimed ownership by adverse possession. The trial court and first appellate court both decreed in Dagadabai's favour, but the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), in a second appeal, reversed these concurrent findings and dismissed her suit, leading to this further appeal by her legal representatives.
The Supreme Court held that Mohammadan law does not recognize adoption, so the respondent's claim to be Rustum's adopted son and heir could not succeed. It further held that a plea of adverse possession requires the claimant to first implicitly admit the true owner's title and then prove actual, peaceful, continuous and hostile possession for over 12 years to the knowledge of the true owner, since the respondent never admitted Dagadabai's ownership and instead claimed title of his own (as an adopted son), he could not simultaneously fall back on adverse possession against her. Finding the High Court's reversal of the concurrent findings of the courts below to be legally unsustainable, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the decree of the trial court and first appellate court in Dagadabai's favour.
A person cannot claim ownership of property on one ground (such as being an heir) and, having failed to prove that, fall back on adverse possession without first admitting the true owner's title: the two claims are legally inconsistent, and under Mohammadan law there is no concept of adoption conferring inheritance rights.
