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 (plaintiff) owned land in Karagund village, Karnataka, that he received through a family partition in 1980. In 1983 he discovered that a small portion of his land (1 Guntas in Survey No. 17/3) had been encroached upon by the respondents (defendants); the dispute was initially resolved through a local Panchayat, which restored possession to him. In 1992, after the respondents again disputed his ownership, the appellant filed a civil suit seeking declaration of title and injunction (or alternatively possession) over the land, but both the trial court and the Karnataka High Court ultimately held that the respondents had perfected title over the disputed strip by adverse possession.
The Supreme Court held that the courts below erred in finding adverse possession in the respondents' favour. It reasoned that the appellant only acquired "knowledge" of the encroachment in 1983 when he had the land formally measured by the revenue department, and he filed his suit in 1992, well within the 12-year limitation period for adverse possession claims, counted from the date of knowledge. There was also no evidence that the respondents had asserted hostile, exclusive possession to the appellant's knowledge before 1983. Since the 12-year period had not run before suit was filed, the plea of adverse possession was not available to the respondents at all, regardless of how long they may have occupied the land prior to 1983 (such possession not being "hostile" or to the knowledge of the true owner). The Court therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, decreed the suit in the appellant's favour in its entirety, and gave the respondents three months to vacate and hand over possession.
A claim of adverse possession requires open, hostile, and exclusive possession running for the full 12-year statutory period counted from the true owner's date of knowledge of the encroachment: mere long-standing occupation before that date of knowledge does not count toward extinguishing the owner's title.
