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.
A company (the "borrowers") took a cash-credit facility and a term loan from a bank in 2016, secured by a mortgage over land created by two guarantors. The loan account was declared a non-performing asset in 2019, and after issuing the statutory notices required under the SARFAESI Act, the bank auctioned the mortgaged property in February 2021. The appellants (auction purchasers) won the auction, paid the full sale price, and received a Sale Certificate in March 2021. The borrowers then belatedly tried to pay off the outstanding dues (partly before, but substantially after, the auction) and challenged the sale before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and later the Madras High Court, which, relying on the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Mathew Varghese v. Amritha Kumar: quashed the Sale Certificate and allowed the borrowers to redeem the mortgage, treating the right of redemption as surviving until the "fall of the hammer."
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in applying Mathew Varghese, because that decision interpreted the pre-2016 (unamended) version of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. After the 2016 amendment, the provision was substantially reworded, and the Court held that a borrower's statutory right to redeem the mortgaged property by tendering the full outstanding dues (with costs and charges) is available only "before the date of publication of notice for public auction", not up to the actual sale or registration of the sale certificate. Once the auction notice is published, the secured creditor is free to proceed with the sale, and the borrower loses the right to stop it by paying up later. The Court undertook a detailed legislative and textual analysis of Section 13(8) and the SARFAESI Rules to clarify this timeline and resolve conflicting High Court views on the point. Applying this to the facts, since the borrowers' payments came after the auction notice/auction itself, their right of redemption had already lapsed, so the Sale Certificate in favour of the auction purchasers was valid. Both appeals were allowed and the Madras High Court's judgment was set aside; the Court also flagged the ambiguity in Section 13(8) versus the SARFAESI Rules to the Ministry of Finance for legislative correction.
Under the SARFAESI Act (as amended in 2016), a defaulting borrower/guarantor can save mortgaged property from a bank auction only by clearing the full outstanding dues before the auction notice is published, paying up afterward, even before the sale is finally registered, will not undo a bank auction or defeat a genuine auction purchaser's rights.
