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.
On 8 November 2016, the Central Government issued a notification under Section 26(2) of the RBI Act declaring that all Rs. 500 and Rs. 1,000 currency notes would cease to be legal tender from the next day, a measure popularly called "demonetisation," aimed at curbing black money, counterfeiting and terror financing. Numerous citizens, including the petitioner Vivek Narayan Sharma, filed writ petitions across the country challenging the notification as arbitrary, procedurally flawed, and beyond the government's power under the RBI Act; these were transferred to the Supreme Court and eventually referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench in 2016 to authoritatively decide, among other things, whether the Central Government could initiate demonetisation of "all" series of notes via this provision, whether the process followed was lawful, and whether it violated citizens' fundamental rights.
By a 4:1 majority (Gavai, J. for himself, Nazeer, Bopanna and Ramasubramanian, JJ.), the Court held that Section 26(2) of the RBI Act permits the Central Government to demonetise "any series" of bank notes, and that this can validly extend to all series of a denomination. It is not limited to "some" notes only, and does not amount to unconstitutional excessive delegation because the recommendation of the RBI's Central Board acts as a built-in safeguard. The majority further held that the decision-making process leading to the 8 November 2016 notification was not flawed, that it satisfied the proportionality test, and that the window given for exchanging old notes was not unreasonable, so the notification and the demonetisation exercise were upheld as lawful. Justice Nagarathna dissented, holding that the RBI Act only contemplates the RBI's Central Board initiating a demonetisation recommendation for a specific series, not the Government engineering the process and merely obtaining the Bank's concurrence, and that a nationwide demonetisation of "all" series of notes could only be validly done through an Ordinance followed by parliamentary legislation, not by an executive gazette notification, making the 2016 notification and the subsequent Ordinance/Act unlawful in her view. However, even in dissent, she declined to unwind the already-completed exercise, holding that any declaration would operate only prospectively under Article 142 and granting no relief to the individual petitioners.
Even where the Supreme Court finds that a government economic policy was well-intentioned, it will still scrutinise whether the specific legal provision used to implement it was followed correctly and whether adequate procedural safeguards (such as an independent recommendation from an expert body like the RBI's Central Board) were genuinely observed, and courts are generally reluctant to unwind a large-scale economic measure years after it has already taken effect, even when its legality is seriously disputed.
