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.
The Karnataka State Electronics Development Corporation (KEONICS) allotted a plot in Electronic City, Bangalore, to Kumaon Entertainment at a tentative price of Rs 1 crore per acre for an IT-sector project, with the final price to be fixed later. In 2007 the allottee sought and received permission to switch its planned use from IT to hospitality (i.e., to build a hotel), paying Rs 5 lakh in conversion charges at the old tentative rate. Around the same time, KEONICS's Board had separately raised the official land rate to Rs 3.2 crore per acre; a government audit later flagged that the conversion should have been charged at this higher rate, and KEONICS demanded an additional Rs 83.25 lakh (factoring in a further 40% loading for commercial use). The allottee refused, and the High Court (Single Judge and Division Bench) ruled in its favour, treating KEONICS's own earlier (mistaken) justification of the Rs 5 lakh charge as binding and dismissing KEONICS's appeal partly on a delay of 459 days.
The Supreme Court held that the allotment letter and lease-cum-sale agreement made clear that Rs 1 crore per acre was only a tentative price and that the Corporation's Board retained the right to fix a final, binding price later, which it had done through its 141st Board Resolution adopting the government's guidance value of Rs 3.2 crore per acre, passed shortly before the allottee's request for change of use. Since a lower-level staff member's mistaken calculation (using the outdated tentative rate) could not override a formal Board decision, the demand for the correct differential amount was valid, especially since all other similarly placed allottees had paid at the revised rate and any shortfall would be a loss to public funds given KEONICS is wholly state-owned. The Court also found that the High Court wrongly refused to condone the Corporation's 459-day delay in filing its appeal, since much of that delay came from pursuing legitimate legal remedies (reviews) rather than negligence, and none of the precedents cited against condonation actually applied to these facts. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside both High Court judgments, upheld the higher demand, and dismissed the allottee's writ petition.
A formal decision of a company's or corporation's board of directors overrides an inconsistent, mistaken calculation by junior staff, and a public body cannot be bound by its own employee's error where doing so would cause a loss to public funds; courts should also look at the substance of why an appeal was delayed rather than mechanically rejecting it for delay alone.
