Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

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.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Girish Kumar Jain vs. UCO Bank

Regular First Appeal · 2026:DHC:8152Decided 22 Sept 2026New Delhi Bench
RFA 634/2026CNR: DLHC010292852026
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Background

Girish Kumar Jain had leased a commercial property to UCO Bank from 1994. The electricity connection to the property was disconnected in 2006 after an electricity-theft case was registered (Jain blamed the Bank's excessive load; the Bank denied any theft). The Bank vacated in 2008, but Jain claimed he could not re-let the property until 2013 because electricity could not be restored, and sued the Bank for Rs. 9,94,000/- in lost rent (at Rs. 24,000/month) for a three-year period, plus interest. The trial court dismissed the suit, and Jain appealed.

Decision Breakdown

The High Court held that a claimant for damages must show he took all reasonable steps to mitigate his loss, and Jain had failed to prove that arranging an alternative electricity supply (which he eventually did in 2013, by drawing power from another of his own properties) was actually unavailable to him any earlier: he provided no evidence about when that alternative arrangement could have been made. Separately, the Court found Jain had not proved the claimed rental rate of Rs. 24,000/month with "reasonable certainty," since his only evidence was a 2013 lease at a different rate, while an earlier court had found the property's real 2006 rental value to be far lower, and he presented no evidence (advertisements, broker testimony, rejected tenant offers) that the property actually sat vacant solely because of the missing electricity. The appeal was dismissed.

Lesson Learnt

A claimant seeking damages for financial loss must not only prove the wrongdoing but must also prove (with real evidence, not just assertions) both that they took reasonable steps to minimise their own loss and the actual amount of the loss: vague claims about lost rent, without supporting proof of market rate or genuine efforts to re-let the property, will not succeed in court.

Girish Kumar Jain vs. UCO Bank – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware