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 claimed he was assigned a vacant site in 1974, built a house on it, and later gave his father a power of attorney limited to construction-related work. He alleged his father exceeded that authority by executing a 1988 sale deed transferring the property to a granddaughter (Defendant No. 1), who later passed it on by a settlement deed and then a general power of attorney to other family members. The appellant said he only learned of these transactions around 2011, complained to the police, and filed a civil suit in 2014 seeking a declaration of ownership and to nullify the deeds. The defendants sought rejection of the plaint as time-barred; the trial court refused, but the Madras High Court, in revision, allowed the plaint's rejection on the ground that the suit was filed too late.
The Supreme Court held that under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, the three-year limitation period for cancelling an instrument runs from when the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the relevant facts, not automatically from the date of the document's registration. Since the appellant had specifically pleaded a particular date of knowledge (and had taken prompt steps like filing a police complaint and objecting to the property's registration once he learned of the transactions), whether he actually knew earlier was a disputed, mixed question of fact and law that could only be resolved through a full trial with evidence, not decided summarily at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The High Court's revisional order rejecting the plaint was set aside, and the trial court's order (allowing the case to proceed to trial) was restored.
When a lawsuit's timeliness depends on exactly when the plaintiff found out about a disputed transaction, courts generally cannot throw out the case at the very start: that factual question about "date of knowledge" must ordinarily be tested through evidence and a full trial, not decided on the pleadings alone.
