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 moreA plot of land in Hubli, Karnataka originally belonged to three individuals ("the three Patils") who leased and then sold portions of it in the 1940s to one Shah Veljee Kanjee, whose heirs held it for decades. In 1973 the State purported to "re-grant" the land back to the original three Patils, who did nothing with that re-grant for 31 years until finally suing in 2004: by which point their suits were dismissed as time-barred. Meanwhile a builder firm (the appellants) had separately agreed in 2001 to buy the land from the same original Patils, and when Shah Veljee Kanjee's descendants sued for partition of their share, the builder firm contested the suit, claiming the Patils still owned the land and so could validly sell it.
The Supreme Court upheld the Karnataka High Court's finding that the plaintiff (a descendant of Shah Veljee Kanjee) owned a 1/5th share in the land, and dismissed the builder firm's appeal. The Court held that even assuming the 1973 re-grant orders validly revived the original Patils' title, any such revived right had to be enforced by filing a suit within 12 years under Section 27 and Articles 64/65 of the Limitation Act, and since the Patils waited 31 years, their right to the property was legally extinguished by the time they sued in 2004. Since a buyer can only acquire whatever title the seller actually possesses, the builder firm (claiming through the Patils) could acquire no valid title either. The Court also noted Shah Veljee Kanjee's family had been in long, open, continuous possession since 1942/43, reinforcing their ownership against the Patils' stale claim.
A property right that is not enforced through court within the legal limitation period (12 years for recovering immovable property) is extinguished by law, and no one, including a later buyer, can revive or purchase a title that has already lapsed through delay.
