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.
Raus Constructions borrowed from Indian Bank in 2012 and defaulted. The bank took possession of the mortgaged properties under the SARFAESI Act and auctioned one of them (Item No. 8) in February 2017; K. Sreedhar was the highest bidder at about Rs. 2.76 crore, paid up, received a sale certificate, took possession, levelled the plot and applied for building permission. The borrower's challenge before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) failed in May 2019. Instead of appealing to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), which would have required a pre-deposit of 25% of the debt, the borrower filed a writ petition in the Telangana High Court, which set aside the sale on the grounds that the 25% and 75% instalments were paid late and that several of the properties were agricultural land exempt from SARFAESI.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition at all, because an appeal to the DRAT was available and the writ route was used only to dodge the pre-deposit. On merits too the High Court was wrong: under Rule 9(3) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules the 25% deposit may be paid on the day of auction or the next working day, and here Rs. 26 lakh was paid before the auction and Rs. 45 lakh the day after, so the full 25% was in time; the balance 75% was paid within the 15-day extended period the bank itself granted in writing, which Rule 9(4) permits. On the "agricultural land" point, the Court reiterated Blue Coast Hotels and K. Pappireddiyar: a revenue-record entry showing land as agricultural is not conclusive: what matters is whether the land was actually being used for agriculture when it was mortgaged, and the borrower who claims the exemption bears the burden of proving that use. The borrower had produced only revenue records, while the bank had produced photographs showing no farming activity. The High Court's judgment was set aside and the DRT's order confirming the auction sale was restored.
A borrower cannot escape the SARFAESI appeal process (and its pre-deposit) by running straight to the High Court, and cannot shield mortgaged land from enforcement merely by pointing to an "agricultural" entry in the land records. It must show real agricultural use at the time of the mortgage. Auction purchasers who pay within the rules and any written extension from the bank get secure title.
