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 Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act was amended in 2009 to let the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai switch from taxing property based on notional "rateable value" (annual rent) to taxing it based on "capital value" (a value-based system, drawing on Stamp Duty Ready Reckoner rates). The Corporation framed Capital Value Rules in 2010 (notified in 2012) and again in 2015. Property owners challenged the new system before the Bombay High Court on several grounds, including that Rule 20 improperly let the Commissioner factor in a plot's future development potential (extra floor space index and transferable development rights) into its current capital value, and that the Rules were being applied retrospectively to years before they were actually notified. The High Court partly ruled in favour of the property owners (striking down Rule 20 and disallowing retrospective levy) while rejecting their broader constitutional challenges. Both the Corporation and the property owners appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court dismissed both sets of appeals and affirmed the High Court's judgment in full. It held that under Section 154 of the Act, "capital value" for property tax must reflect the land or building's actual, present physical attributes and use as they exist "in presenti", not speculative future development potential. Since Rule 20 allowed the Commissioner to add value for floor space index or transferable development rights that a plot could utilise only in the future, it went beyond what Section 154 permitted and was rightly struck down as ultra vires. The Court also upheld the High Court's finding that the Corporation could not levy property tax based on capital value for any period before the Capital Value Rules of 2010 were actually notified (20.03.2012), since there is no statutory power to impose such a tax retrospectively. Finally, the Court found no reason to disturb the High Court's rejection of the property owners' broader constitutional and legislative-competence challenges to the capital-value system itself.
A municipal or tax authority's valuation power is confined to what the enabling statute actually allows (value can be pegged to a property's real, present condition and use, but not to speculative future development potential unless the law expressly says so) and a tax based on newly framed valuation rules cannot be applied retrospectively to years before those rules came into force.
