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.
Under the National AYUSH Mission, the Central Government gives states grant-in-aid to buy Ayurvedic medicines, and paragraph 4(vi)(b) of the Mission's Operational Guidelines says at least 50% of that money must be spent on medicines from IMPCL (a central public sector company) "or" from other PSUs, state government pharmacies and co-operatives that are GMP-compliant. The Uttar Pradesh State AYUSH Society had been buying all its Ayurvedic medicines only from IMPCL, by direct nomination, without any tender. The Kerala Ayurvedic Co-operative Society, a licensed GMP-certified manufacturer, asked to be considered or for a tender to be held, and when that was ignored it went to the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), which in October 2019 held the single-vendor practice illegal and directed the State to buy through a transparent tender process. IMPCL and the State of UP appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Court first rejected the idea that welfare-related government spending is mere "largesse" the State may dispense at will: because government contracts spend public money, every such award must satisfy the fairness and non-arbitrariness standard of Article 14. Reviewing its precedents (Ramana Dayaram Shetty, New Horizons, Kamdhenu Cattle Feed, Nagar Nigam vs Al Farheem, the 2G Presidential Reference), it held that while tendering or auction is not a rigid constitutional requirement, it is the preferred route, and any departure from it must be justified as non-arbitrary; exceptions are limited to situations such as emergencies, a genuine single source, or failed auctions. Interpreting paragraph 4(vi)(b), the Court found that the word "or" places IMPCL, other PSUs, state pharmacies and co-operatives on an equal footing, with no gradation or intended monopoly, and that the old 1994 ministry letter favouring IMPCL alone had been superseded by the AYUSH Ministry's January 2019 notification. IMPCL's claim that it is the only maker of quality Ayurvedic medicines was found to rest on "surmises and conjectures" with no supporting material, so buying from IMPCL alone by nomination was arbitrary and violated Article 14. The appeals were dismissed: the State must henceforth procure through a free and transparent process such as tenders, and may resort to nomination only if it demonstrates exceptional circumstances with cogent material. Intervention applications by an MSME manufacturers' federation seeking a guaranteed share for small enterprises were dismissed as beyond the scope of the appeal.
When the government spends public money on contracts, it cannot simply pick a favoured supplier; it must normally hold a transparent tender and may deviate only for exceptional, properly documented reasons. A government-owned company enjoys no automatic preference over other eligible suppliers merely because of its ownership.
