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.
This is a common judgment deciding thirteen tagged appeals together, all raising the same recurring legal question under India's power sector regulations: what counts as a "Captive Generating Plant" (a power plant set up mainly to supply its own owners/shareholders, which gets certain benefits like exemption from cross-subsidy surcharges) and who qualifies as a "captive user" of such a plant. The dispute arose because two Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) rulings had taken conflicting positions on how to calculate the required shareholding and consumption thresholds under Rule 3 of the Electricity Rules, 2005, creating uncertainty for power companies and consumers across multiple ongoing cases, including the lead dispute between Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited and Gayatri Shakti Paper and Board Limited.
The Supreme Court framed and answered three legal questions: (1) the eligibility criteria for a plant/user to qualify as "captive" under Rule 3(1)(a), (2) the meaning of "association of persons" in the rule's second proviso, and (3) whether a company incorporated as a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) to generate electricity can itself be treated as an "association of persons" for this purpose. On the technical calculation method, the Court endorsed and refined a "unitary qualifying ratio" approach (consumption requirement of 51% divided by shareholding requirement of 26%, i.e., roughly 1.96% consumption required for every 1% of shareholding, with a 10% variation allowed either way), illustrating with worked numerical examples how individual shareholders' captive-user status should be assessed. On the SPV question, the Court held that an SPV which owns, operates, and maintains a Captive Generating Plant is itself an "association of persons" under the second proviso, meaning its shareholder-companies must still separately satisfy the Rule 3(1)(a) shareholding-and-consumption thresholds, rejecting the argument that forming an SPV could let a plant "camouflage" as captive while a dominant shareholder-generator consumes most of the power without holding matching captive-user shares.
Businesses and industrial groups structuring a "captive" power plant to obtain regulatory benefits must ensure each shareholder-consumer's shareholding and actual electricity consumption independently satisfy the prescribed mathematical ratio, using layered corporate structures like an SPV does not bypass this requirement, since courts will look through the structure to prevent "gaming" the statutory scheme meant to genuinely benefit companies that invest in and consume from their own power plants.
