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.
Cable TV and DTH (direct-to-home) broadcasting companies such as Asianet Satellite Communications and Tata Sky challenged various State laws (including Kerala's Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976, and a similar Uttar Pradesh enactment) that taxed their broadcasting business as "entertainment," arguing that since they were also paying central service tax on the same broadcasting activity under the Finance Act, 1994, the States had no power to tax it a second time as entertainment. The Kerala High Court had struck down part of the State law as discriminatory (it exempted cable operators with fewer than 7,500 connections from the tax while taxing larger operators), a ruling the State of Kerala in turn appealed. The case consolidated a very large batch of similar appeals and writ petitions from across the country raising the same core constitutional question.
The Supreme Court held that broadcasting is a single activity that has two distinct "aspects" that can each be validly taxed by a different legislature without any unconstitutional overlap: it is a "service" (broadcasting signals to subscribers) taxable by Parliament under the residuary Entry 97 of the Union List, and it is also an act of "entertaining" subscribers, taxable by the State legislature under Entry 62 of the State List as a form of luxury/entertainment. Applying the constitutional "aspect theory," the Court concluded that both the service tax and the State entertainment/luxury tax can be validly levied on the same broadcasting companies at the same time, since each tax targets a legally distinct aspect of the activity. It also held that the Allahabad High Court was wrong to read a later UP amendment covering DTH services as merely "clarificatory" of an older law, since DTH was a genuinely new technology not covered by the original Act: partly allowing that appeal. On Kerala's own appeal, the Court held the Kerala High Court was wrong to strike down the connections-based exemption as discriminatory; instead of creating an exemption for smaller operators, the High Court should have simply required everyone to pay the tax, so the Court set aside that part of the Kerala High Court's ruling, dismissed the assessee's writ petition, and allowed the State of Kerala's appeal.
Being taxed twice on what looks like "the same" business activity is not automatically unconstitutional double taxation, under India's federal structure, the same commercial activity can validly be taxed by both the Union and a State government at once, as long as each tax is genuinely aimed at a different constitutional "aspect" of that activity (here, the technical service of broadcasting versus the entertainment it delivers to viewers).
