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 CBI corruption case was registered against a Customs Department officer and his wife in 2006 for allegedly holding assets disproportionate to their known income. In 2008, the CBI itself sought closure of the case, stating the accused could not be prosecuted, and the Special Court accepted this closure report in 2009. In 2013, about four years later, the CBI applied to reopen the matter for "further investigation" under Section 173(8) CrPC, claiming new evidence had come to light, and the Special Court permitted this. Based on this further investigation, the CBI filed a fresh chargesheet in 2014-15 against the officer, his wife, and his brother-in-law. The accused challenged the chargesheet before the Madras High Court, and while one bench of the High Court initially upheld the reopening, a later, differently-constituted bench of the same High Court took the opposite view and quashed the entire prosecution, holding the Special Court had no power to permit further investigation once a closure report had already been accepted.
The Supreme Court held that acceptance of a closure report under Section 173(2) CrPC, though a judicial order, does not bar the police or CBI from conducting genuine "further investigation" under Section 173(8) CrPC if new evidence subsequently emerges: this does not require the earlier closure order to be recalled or reviewed, since Section 173(8) exists precisely to address such situations. The Court distinguished "further investigation" (a continuation of the same investigation based on additional/new material) from a prohibited "fresh" or "de novo reinvestigation" (starting over from scratch), tracing this distinction through a long line of its own precedents including Vinay Tyagi, K. Chandrasekhar, and S. Papaiah. The Court also strongly criticized the Madras High Court for a serious breach of judicial discipline: one bench simply overruling an earlier coordinate bench's decision on the same point (by labelling it "per incuriam") instead of referring the conflict to a larger bench, calling this "atrocious and unacceptable." It rejected the argument that the long delay since the original 2006 case should bar the trial, holding that "a crime never dies" and mere delay is not by itself a ground to block prosecution, especially where further investigation serves the interest of justice. The Court allowed all the CBI's appeals, set aside the High Court's orders quashing the chargesheet, and directed the Special Court to proceed with the trial.
An investigating agency is not permanently barred from a case merely because it once filed a closure report: genuine further investigation based on new evidence remains permissible even years later; and when different benches of the same court disagree on a legal question, judicial discipline requires referring the conflict to a larger bench rather than one bench simply overruling another.
