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 respondents (original plaintiffs) sued claiming certain lands in Latur district belonged to a Dargah (Muslim shrine) of which they were Inamdars/managers, after the government had handed over possession of the land to a different trust in 1978. The trial court dismissed the suit as time-barred and unproven, but the District Judge on appeal reversed this, holding the land belonged to the Dargah and ordering possession restored to the plaintiffs; the Bombay High Court upheld this but modified the finding to hold the plaintiffs were descendants of Mutawalis (managers) rather than Inamdars (titleholders). The appellants (defendants) then appealed to the Supreme Court, disputing title, limitation, and the scope of relief granted.
The Supreme Court held the finding of fact that the land historically belonged to the Dargah, based on documentary records dating back to 1915, was concurrently established by the District Court and High Court and could not be disturbed. On limitation, it held the suit (filed in 1987, for possession based on title with a 12-year limitation period from when possession became adverse in 1978) was well within time, rejecting the appellants' argument that a shorter 3-year period for mere declaration suits applied. The Court also rejected the argument that the High Court improperly granted an unclaimed relief, holding that granting the lesser status of "Mutawali" instead of the higher claimed status of "Inamdar" was permissible, and refused to admit new documents the appellants had never placed before the trial court. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.
In property suits based on title, courts apply the longer 12-year limitation period for possession claims (not the shorter 3-year period for pure declaration suits) even when a declaration is also sought, and a court may lawfully grant a lesser or reduced version of the relief claimed without it being treated as an entirely new, unpleaded case.
