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 appellants (plaintiffs) sued for a declaration of title, permanent injunction, and possession over a property, after proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code before a City Magistrate (who attached the property in 1966) revealed that the defendants were asserting a rival claim over it. The trial court decreed the suit fully in the plaintiffs' favour on merits, but on the defendants' first appeal, the Rajasthan High Court reversed this, holding the suit was filed for "declaration and injunction only" (not possession) and was time-barred under the stricter three-year period applicable to such suits.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reading of the plaint was factually incorrect: a plain reading of the prayer clause showed the plaintiffs had also sought a decree for possession, not merely declaration and injunction. Because possession was claimed, the twelve-year limitation period under Article 65 of the Limitation Act applied (running from when the defendants' possession became "adverse"), not the shorter period the High Court had wrongly applied. The Court found the plaintiffs' cause of action arose when the defendants first asserted a rival title in the 1966 Section 145 proceedings, and the 1978 suit was filed well within the resulting twelve-year window. Since the defendants had lost on merits at both the trial court and first appellate level and had not filed any cross-objection challenging those merits findings, the Supreme Court did not need to revisit them; it set aside the High Court's limitation finding, allowed the appeal, and restored the trial court's decree in the plaintiffs' favour.
Whether a suit is filed within time often turns on correctly characterising the actual relief sought in the plaint: a suit that also claims possession attracts the longer twelve-year limitation period under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, not the shorter period applicable to a bare declaration-and-injunction suit, so courts must read the prayer clause carefully before dismissing a case as time-barred.
