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 appellant, a sitting Cabinet Minister of Tamil Nadu, was being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the PMLA in connection with an underlying criminal case. After a search at his premises on 13 June 2023, the ED arrested him the next day for allegedly not cooperating; while under interrogation he complained of chest pain and was hospitalised, later undergoing bypass surgery. His wife filed a habeas corpus petition in the Madras High Court challenging his detention, while a Sessions Judge separately granted the ED judicial custody and later 8 days' further custody for interrogation (to be carried out at the hospital, subject to medical conditions). A three-judge reference in the Madras High Court produced split views: one judge found the arrest and habeas corpus petition maintainable and ruled in the appellant's favour, while the other two (with the tie-breaking judge agreeing) held the ED did have power to seek custody, that habeas corpus generally cannot be used to challenge a valid judicial remand order, and that the hospitalisation period should be excluded from the 15-day custody window.
The Supreme Court held that a writ of habeas corpus is generally not the correct remedy to challenge a judicial remand order that has not itself been specifically challenged, and is maintainable only in exceptional circumstances, which were absent here since a competent court had ordered judicial custody after applying its mind. It further held that the Enforcement Directorate does have the power to seek custody of an arrested person under the PMLA (paralleling police custody under Section 167(2) CrPC), and that the phrase "such custody" in that provision covers custody sought by any investigating agency, not just the police. The Court agreed that the 15-day custody period is to be counted across the whole investigation (not just the first 15 days after arrest) and can be reasonably extended to account for time genuinely lost to hospitalisation outside the agency's control. It dismissed the appeals of both the Minister and his wife, upholding the High Court's majority view, while separately disposing of the ED's related appeals and referring a related legal question about how Section 167(2) CrPC custody periods should be computed to a larger bench for authoritative resolution.
A person validly remanded to judicial custody by a competent court generally cannot use a habeas corpus petition to bypass the normal channels (bail applications, revisions, appeals) for challenging that detention; and investigating agencies under special laws like the PMLA can seek custodial interrogation similarly to how police do under the ordinary criminal procedure code.
