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, a poor landless cultivator, claimed his family had farmed about 1 acre 80½ cents of land in Sangam Agraharam village, Andhra Pradesh for generations as a tenant of the local temple deity (Sri Sangameswara Swamy Varu), and that once the Inam Estate was abolished by the 1948 Act, he became entitled to a "ryotwari patta" (a direct cultivation title under the Government) as the sitting ryot. In parallel 1974 civil suits, one by the appellant seeking declaration of his rights, and one by the temple's Estate Officer claiming he was merely a rent-paying tenant in arrears, a civil court decree in 1977 upheld the appellant's occupancy rights and his entitlement to a ryotwari patta. Decades later, when the temple again tried to interfere with his possession in 2005, the High Court held against the appellant, prompting this appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the 1977 civil court decree recognising the appellant's occupancy rights and entitlement to a ryotwari patta was binding on the temple-respondent, rejecting the argument that the civil court lacked jurisdiction: settlement/revenue authorities' decisions on patta grants under the Act are final only "for the purposes of the Act" (i.e., revenue collection), not a general bar on a civil court deciding the underlying nature of the land rights. The Court also rejected the limitation defence, holding that the relevant date for computing limitation was 6 July 2005, when the temple actually attempted to interfere with the appellant's possession, not the date of the 1977 decree. Finding the appellant's claim neither barred by limitation nor defeated by the earlier decree, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order.
A civil court's decree on who actually owns or occupies land generally survives and binds the parties even against later revenue/administrative claims, and the clock for a limitation defence runs from when a right is actually threatened or interfered with, not from the date of an old decree that was never challenged at the time.
