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.
Land Acquisition Appeal · 2026:DHC:8039
Deadlines for filing appeals matter, and courts are unlikely to excuse very long, poorly-explained delays. A litigant who accepts a particular valuation or benchmark at the trial stage, without presenting evidence to the contrary, will generally not be allowed to seek a better outcome later on appeal.
Civil Miscellaneous (Main) Petition · 2026:DHC:8010
Even a short delay in responding to a summary suit can nearly cost a person their right to defend themselves in court. Even so, courts will usually give a genuine, honestly-explained short delay the benefit of the doubt rather than shutting the door entirely, especially when doing so avoids a decree being passed without a hearing on the actual merits.
Criminal Appeal · 2026:DHC:7989-DB
A conviction cannot rest on the "last seen together" circumstance alone, however suspicious it looks. The prosecution must build a complete, gap-free chain of evidence that leaves no reasonable possibility of innocence, and any genuine doubt must benefit the accused, not the prosecution.
Writ Petition (Civil) · 2026:DHC:8044
An employer, including a government body, cannot dismiss even a daily-wage or temporary worker as punishment for alleged wrongdoing without first giving them a fair, formal inquiry with a real chance to defend themselves; skipping that step can make the termination illegal regardless of how the employer labels it.
Regular Second Appeal · 2026:DHC:8003
When a special law like the Electricity Act sets up its own dedicated authority to resolve a particular type of dispute (here, compensation for unauthorised power lines), ordinary civil courts generally cannot step in even if the other side's conduct was clearly improper. The aggrieved person must go to that specific authority (District Magistrate/Police Commissioner) instead, and must also be ready to prove the actual amount of loss suffered, not just assert a claim.
First Appeal from Order · 2026:DHC:8047
A long gap between a person's death and a Will being taken to court for probate is not automatically suspicious if there's a reasonable family explanation for it; and a party who repeatedly fails to use the opportunities a court gives them to produce evidence cannot expect a second chance for the same evidence at the appeal stage.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8035
Where a genuine compromise is reached in a case involving non-serious, personal-dispute offences, courts can quash the FIR to spare both sides a lengthy trial, but only after the judge is personally satisfied that the settlement is voluntary and genuine, not merely on paper.
Writ Petition (Civil) · 2026:DHC:7977-DB
Being investigated twice over GST credit from the same supplier is not automatically illegal. The "same subject matter" protection only kicks in when both proceedings target the exact same contravention, so a genuine fraud probe can run independently of an earlier routine tax assessment.
Regular First Appeal · 2026:DHC:8014
In Indian property law, being physically absent from a jointly-inherited property does not by itself strip a family co-owner of their rightful share. The other occupants must prove they treated the absent owner as clearly and knowingly excluded, not just that they lived there without them.
Legal 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.
Not available
The case arose from decades-old challenges (dating back to 1992) to Chapter VIII-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA Act), which allowed the state to acquire certain cessed properties in Mumbai for restoration/redevelopment on payment of only 100 times the monthly rent, far below market value, to protect tenants living in dilapidated buildings. Property owners argued this violated their constitutional rights. Over the years, three-judge and five-judge benches of the Supreme Court referred a core constitutional question to a larger bench: does the phrase "material resources of the community" in Article 39(b) of the Constitution include privately owned property, and does that bring such acquisition laws within the protective umbrella of Article 31C (which shields laws implementing Article 39(b)/(c) from challenge under Articles 14 and 19)? This question traced back to conflicting Supreme Court precedents from the 1970s-80s, particularly Justice Krishna Iyer's expansive minority view in State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy, later relied upon by the Court in Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Co. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.
By a 7:2 majority, the Court held that Article 31C, to the extent upheld in Kesavananda Bharati, survives in the Constitution despite the 42nd Amendment (which had broadened it) being struck down in Minerva Mills. On the core question, the majority held that Justice Krishna Iyer's broad interpretation in Ranganatha Reddy (that virtually all privately owned resources qualify as "material resources of the community") was actually a minority view that the Ranganatha Reddy majority itself had expressly distanced from, so Sanjeev Coke erred in treating it as binding precedent; a related observation in the Mafatlal case was also held not to be binding ratio. The Court clarified that while the phrase "material resources of the community" can theoretically include privately owned resources, this is not automatic. It must be assessed case-by-case using a non-exhaustive list of factors: the nature and characteristics of the resource, its impact on community well-being, its scarcity, and the consequences of it being concentrated in private hands (with the Public Trust Doctrine as an aid). Justice Nagarathna concurred with parts of the reasoning but differed on certain aspects, while Justice Dhulia dissented, favouring retention of the broader Krishna Iyer/Sanjeev Coke approach. The Court did not decide the validity of the Maharashtra MHADA Act itself, leaving that to a regular bench to decide applying this clarified test.
Not every piece of private property automatically becomes a "community resource" that the state can acquire cheaply in the name of Article 39(b). Courts will now examine the nature of the resource, its scarcity, and its impact on public welfare before allowing redistributive laws that fall back on that constitutional justification. This significantly curtails the scope for governments to invoke "common good" to acquire private property at below-market rates without such a context-specific showing.
