Civil judgments

AP High Court ·28 Sep 2026 ·Motor Accident Claims

AP High Court: Lorry owner stays liable as insurance began after the accident, but compensation raised to Rs 4.36 lakh

The question: Was the lorry insured when the accident happened at 1:30 p.m. on 17 August 2002?

A lorry owner appealed against a tribunal award for the death of an 18-year-old cyclist, arguing his insurance premium was paid on the day of the accident. The High Court found the policy was taken after the accident, so the owner remains liable, but it increased the compensation on its own after finding the tribunal had calculated it wrongly.

Dismissed MACMA/2481/2012

AP High Court ·25 Sep 2026 ·Civil Law

AP High Court: Plaint cannot be struck out as time-barred without trial where an insolvency petition may acknowledge the debt

The question: Can mention of a creditor and the amount due in the debtor's insolvency petition amount to an acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act?

A lender sued to recover Rs 4 lakh on a 2021 promissory note. The trial court at Jammalamadugu rejected the plaint as time-barred, because the debtor's later insolvency petition listing the lender as a creditor was, it said, only an admission and not an acknowledgment that extends limitation. The High Court set that order aside and sent the case back.

Disposed of CRP/2609/2026

AP High Court ·25 Sep 2026 ·Civil Law

AP High Court: Judgment debtors who signed a Lok Adalat award cannot reopen its pecuniary jurisdiction at the execution stage

The question: Can a party who took part in Permanent Lok Adalat proceedings and signed the award later object to its pecuniary jurisdiction in execution?

Judgment debtors opposed execution of a 2010 Permanent Lok Adalat award of Rs 50 lakh, arguing that the Lok Adalat had no power to pass an award above Rs 10 lakh, so it was a nullity that could be challenged in execution. The trial court refused to dismiss the execution petition at that stage. The High Court upheld that order.

Dismissed CRP/1473/2026

Telangana High Court ·22 Sep 2026 ·Land Law

Telangana HC: State cannot reopen 1960 land assignment decades later without proving it was assigned land

The question: Could the RDO treat a Tahsildar's letter as an appeal 1,460 days after the Tahsildar's order, when Section 4-A allows 90 days?

The State appealed against a Single Judge's order quashing a 2020 resumption of about 13 acres in Nizampet village, Medchal-Malkajgiri district, under the Telangana Assignment (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed three connected writ appeals, holding that the State acted far too late and could not show the land was assigned land with a bar on transfers.

Dismissed WA/781/2026

Telangana High Court ·18 Sep 2026 ·Civil Law

Telangana HC allows amendment of a suit property's boundary description, saying it adds no new cause of action

The question: Can the boundary description of the suit property be amended under Order VI Rule 17 CPC?

A plaintiff in a pending title suit before the Junior Civil Judge at Miryalaguda asked to correct the southern boundary of the suit property from 'Road leads to Adavidevulapally to Chityala' to 'Flood Flow Canal and Road'. The trial court refused. The High Court set that order aside in a civil revision petition and allowed the amendment.

Allowed CRP/2422/2026

Supreme Court ·12 Aug 2026 ·Electricity Law

Supreme Court: Electricity boards face strict, not absolute, liability for electrocution; writs unsuitable on disputed facts

The question: Is a writ petition under Article 226 maintainable for compensation in electrocution cases where facts are disputed?

Two electrocution victims' claimants had won compensation of about Rs 25.5 lakh and Rs 44.3 lakh from the Karnataka High Court against the state power transmission company, which treated its liability as absolute and ignored disputed facts. The Supreme Court held that such cases involve strict liability, which has recognised exceptions, and that a writ petition is not the right remedy when negligence and other facts are genuinely disputed.

Appeal(s) allowed 2026 INSC 847

Supreme Court ·10 Aug 2026 ·Family Law

Supreme Court raises maintenance in a matrimonial dispute: PF and stock-plan deductions are not mandatory deductions

The question: Should provident fund and employee stock plan contributions be deducted from income when fixing maintenance?

In a matrimonial dispute, a mother challenged the maintenance fixed by the Delhi High Court for herself and two children, arguing that the father's income had been reduced by deductions that were really voluntary. The Supreme Court agreed that provident fund and employee stock plan contributions are not compulsory deductions in the way income tax and professional tax are, and increased the maintenance.

Disposed off 2026 INSC 822