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 Assam Forest Department advertised 104 Constable posts in the Assam Forest Protection Force in 2014, and a selection process (physical test plus interview, no written exam) was completed in 2016, producing a select list that included the respondents. Days after a change of government following the 2016 Assam Assembly elections, the newly-incumbent Principal Chief Conservator of Forest flagged serious anomalies, including that the reservation policy had not been properly followed and that a disproportionate number of selected candidates came from just two districts, and the Government cancelled the entire select list without holding a formal inquiry. The Gauhati High Court, both at single-judge and Division Bench level, quashed the cancellation, holding that the flawed candidates could have been separated from the rest without scrapping the whole process, and that the PCCF's note could not substitute for a proper factual inquiry.
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court, holding that where a selection process is tainted by systemic fraud or irregularity (here, breach of the reservation policy and disregard of binding precedent on accommodating meritorious reserved-category candidates in the open category) cancelling the entire list is not automatically disproportionate or arbitrary, and each case must be judged on its own facts rather than by a blanket rule that "the chaff can always be separated from the grain." The Court found the anomalies noted by the PCCF were genuine and serious enough to justify scrapping the list, and that the decision was neither irrational nor unreasonable. It also clarified that being on a select list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment, though the employer must have justifiable, non-arbitrary reasons to decline to appoint: here, since the list was never approved by the Government, no such vested right had accrued. The Court allowed the appeal, restored the cancellation, but exercised its Article 142 power to direct that the respondents be allowed to apply afresh with relaxed age and physical-standard requirements, given that nearly a decade had passed.
Being included in a select list or panel for a government job does not by itself create an enforceable right to appointment; if the recruiting authority finds genuine, serious irregularities (such as violation of reservation rules) it can cancel the entire process rather than salvage parts of it, provided the decision is not arbitrary or disproportionate on the specific facts.
