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 parcel of land originally owned by the appellant's father became the subject of a family partition suit, during which one of the parties purportedly "donated" 4 acres of the disputed land to the Karnataka Government; the Karnataka Housing Board then took possession of it in 1979 to build a housing colony. After a 1989 compromise decree made the appellant the absolute owner of the land, she sued the Housing Board for title and possession; the trial court dismissed her suit, but the First Appellate Court in 2006 declared her title (while allowing compensation instead of possession, since construction had already occurred). When the Housing Board did nothing to comply, the appellant began execution proceedings in 2011, only then, in 2017, did the Board wake up and file a second appeal against the 2006 decree, seeking condonation of an extraordinary 3,966-day (nearly 11-year) delay. The Karnataka High Court condoned the delay, and the appellant challenged that condonation before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court undertook an extensive review of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, including the meaning of "sufficient cause," the distinction between "within such period" and "during/for such period," and the jurisprudence on condoning delay by the State and its instrumentalities. It held that the High Court erred in condoning the Housing Board's nearly 11-year delay based merely on administrative lapses and file-movement failures, since such institutional lethargy does not meet the "sufficient cause" threshold: that bar is meant for genuine, bona fide reasons, not routine government inefficiency. The Court emphasized that limitation law serves sound public policy and equity, and that courts must first assess the bona fides of the delay before even looking at the merits of the underlying case. It set aside the High Court's order condoning the delay, restored the finality of the 2006 decree in the appellant's favour, imposed an additional Rs 25,000 cost on the Housing Board (on top of the High Court's existing Rs 25,000 cost), and directed the executing court to complete execution of the decree within two months.
Government bodies and public authorities do not get a free pass on delay just because they are the State. Courts must scrutinize claims of "sufficient cause" strictly, especially against ordinary litigants who suffer prolonged uncertainty while a decree in their favour goes unenforced. Administrative lethargy or file-tracking failures within a government department are not, by themselves, valid grounds to condone years of delay in filing an appeal.
