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.
JSW Energy (earlier Jindal Thermal Power Company) was permitted by the Government of Karnataka to set up a thermal power plant at Bellary, originally meant to supply a dedicated steel-plant consumer, with any surplus power sellable to the Karnataka State Electricity Board (KEB, later KPTCL) under a "heads of terms" and a wheeling and banking agreement. A dispute arose over the tariff payable for power supplied to KPTCL and whether a "concluded contract" existed under the proviso to Section 27(2) of the Karnataka Electricity Reforms Act, 1999. The Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission passed orders on the tariff, but the Karnataka High Court, in an appeal under Section 41 of the Act, set these aside, holding there was a concluded contract, and directed KPTCL to pay/adjust amounts accordingly. KPTCL and the Regulatory Commission appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in finding that a "concluded contract" existed within the meaning of the proviso to Section 27(2) of the Act: the arrangement contemplated only sale of "surplus power" after other categories of demand were met, and the elements of a concluded contract were not made out. It set aside the High Court's findings on this point, as well as its findings on alleged perversity/arbitrariness in the Commission's order and on whether the first respondent qualified as an Independent Power Producer (IPP), and remitted the matter back to the High Court to reconsider the remaining points (whether the Commission's findings warranted interference under its limited Section 41 jurisdiction, including the IPP/Captive Power Plant classification). On the interim question of Rs. 100 crores already paid to the first respondent under a bank guarantee pending appeal, the Court balanced equities and directed the first respondent to repay Rs. 50 crores of that amount within eight weeks, with the fate of the balance to depend on the High Court's eventual decision. KPTCL's appeal was thus partly allowed and the Commission's appeal was allowed to the extent that adverse remarks against it were expunged; parties were left to bear their own costs.
In regulated sectors like electricity, whether a "concluded contract" exists depends strictly on statutory language and the actual terms agreed (e.g., an arrangement limited to "surplus" supply is not automatically a full concluded sale contract); appellate courts reviewing a regulator's order under a limited statutory jurisdiction must stay within that jurisdiction's boundaries, and courts can order interim/equitable adjustments of money already paid while the substantive dispute is remitted for fresh consideration.
