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.
Dependents of employees of the Burdwan, Ranaghat and Habra Municipalities who died while in service applied around 2005-2006 for compassionate appointment, but the municipalities and the State's Director of Local Bodies sat on their applications for nearly a decade before the applicants approached the Calcutta High Court around 2015. A Single Judge dismissed their writ petitions for want of any applicable scheme for municipal (as opposed to State government) employees, but the Division Bench reversed this, holding that certain older circulars (301, 302, 303-Emp) continued to apply to municipalities and directing fresh consideration of the claims: a ruling the State of West Bengal challenged before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held, first, that compassionate appointment schemes exist specifically to give urgent relief from a sudden financial crisis, so any claim loses its basis once that "sense of immediacy" is lost through long delay, and here the applicants themselves had taken about ten years after filing their applications before going to court, meaning the delay was not solely the State's fault. Second, on the substantive point, the Court found that Circular No. 142-Emp (2007) had clarified that the general compassionate-appointment scheme (97-Emp) applied only to State Government employees, and closely read the older circulars (301/302/303-Emp) to show they too were intended for State "Departments," not local bodies like municipalities, meaning no valid scheme actually covered municipal employees at all. On both grounds: absence of an applicable scheme, and the pointlessness of ordering compassionate appointment after 17-18 years by which time the families had already found other means of survival. The Court allowed the State's appeal, set aside the High Court Division Bench's ruling, and restored the original dismissal of the claims, while directing State authorities generally to decide such applications within six months in future cases.
Compassionate appointment for the family of a deceased government/municipal employee is meant to provide urgent, immediate relief from financial crisis, not a delayed job guarantee, both the authorities and the applicant must act promptly, because courts will decline to order such appointments once years have passed and the "immediate need" that justified the scheme no longer exists, and only where a specific government scheme actually covers that category of employee.
