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 1066
Courts will not infer a concluded oral contract for the sale of immovable property just because the other side's witnesses seemed evasive: the party seeking specific performance must independently and affirmatively prove every essential term was genuinely agreed.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1065
Even in serious, high-value corruption cases, prolonged pre-trial detention cannot be used as a substitute for punishment when the trial is unlikely to conclude soon and the evidence is already secured: bail remains the touchstone principle under Article 21's personal liberty protection.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1067
Preventive detention cannot be used as a backdoor way to keep someone in custody once the ordinary criminal process, including bail, has already run its course on the same facts; the detaining authority must show a genuine, independent risk of future harm, not just recycle the criminal case file.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1068
In land acquisition disputes, courts will readily restore a uniform, fair market rate across similarly-situated parcels, but ancillary compensation heads (like moveable equipment such as tubewells) still require the claimant to prove their case with admissible evidence, not private reports whose authors were never examined in court.
First Appeal from Order · 2026:DHC:8447
If you are injured while genuinely trying to board or exit a train, you are very likely covered under railway "untoward incident" compensation law, even if you technically hadn't fully boarded yet: courts read this protection broadly in favour of passengers, and contemporaneous official records (station logs, police diary entries) carry more weight than a statement taken from you much later.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8404
Courts will not entertain vague, unsubstantiated allegations of judicial bias, and a request to combine cases becomes moot once the other related proceedings have already concluded: genuine grievances about trial delay or procedure must be backed by specific, demonstrable facts, not just repeated litigation.
Bail Application · 2026:DHC:8403
Anticipatory bail can be granted even in matrimonial cases involving serious sexual-offence allegations where there is unexplained delay in reporting, no evidence substantiating the need for custodial interrogation, and the investigating agency's own conduct (e.g., undocumented "verbal" notices) fails to justify arrest, though this is assessed only for bail purposes, not as a finding on guilt.
Regular First Appeal · 2026:DHC:8407
In family property disputes, signing a Relinquishment Deed acknowledging receipt of consideration, and then waiting years without challenging it or pursuing your claimed share, will make it very difficult to later prove you were never actually paid; courts expect contemporaneous action (a legal notice, a suit) and corroborating evidence, not delayed assertions alone.
Regular First Appeal · 2026:DHC:8401
A tenant who claims to have paid a large sum toward an informal "mortgage" or side arrangement must be able to prove it with solid evidence (receipts, corroborating witnesses): bare assertions, especially when contradicted by one's own family members under cross-examination, will not defeat a landlord's claim for rent and possession.
6201 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 moreLegal 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 ___).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ambika Food Products Pvt. Ltd. was a closely held private company split among three shareholder groups: the H.M. Patel Group (appellants, ~30.8%), the Sheth Group (~45%), and the V.P. Patel Group (~24.2%). After the Sheth Group resigned from the Board in 2009 and withdrew around Rs. 90 lakhs, the company faced financial difficulty, and on bank advice the Board resolved on 18.12.2009 to raise further capital, later formalised by the shareholders' General Body increasing the authorised capital from Rs. 1 crore to Rs. 2 crore on 27.01.2010. Shares were offered to all existing shareholders in a 1:1 ratio, but the Sheth and V.P. Patel Groups did not subscribe, so their unsubscribed shares went to the H.M. Patel Group, altering the shareholding pattern. The Sheth and V.P. Patel Groups filed oppression-and-mismanagement petitions before the NCLT, which (and later the NCLAT on appeal) held the share allotment invalid and directed a fresh, proportionate allotment as on 18.12.2009, along with a company audit, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that although the Board of Directors cannot itself increase authorised capital (only the General Body of shareholders can, as settled in Nanalal Zaver v. Bombay Life Assurance Co.), the Board's 18.12.2009 resolution, read as a whole, only proposed to issue further shares subject to and effective from the General Body's later approval of the capital increase (which duly came on 27.01.2010), so it was not an unauthorised or oppressive act. The Court noted the offer was made equally to all shareholders in a 1:1 ratio with a genuine choice to subscribe more, less, or not at all, and the concurrent findings below already accepted that the decision to raise capital was bona fide and bank-advised, not tainted by mala fides. The fact that the resulting shareholding shift favoured the appellants was found to be the natural consequence of the other groups' own refusal to subscribe, not a deliberately engineered outcome. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed, the direction to allot shares afresh was set aside, but the direction for a company audit was left undisturbed, with no order as to costs.
In a closely held company, a Board resolution to issue further shares is not invalid merely because it is passed before the shareholders' General Body has formally increased the authorised capital, so long as the resolution itself makes the allotment conditional on that increase being approved; and a shareholder who is given a fair, proportionate opportunity to subscribe to new shares but chooses not to cannot later cry oppression when the resulting shareholding shifts against them.
