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 23 September 2018, a sitting MLA and a former MLA in Andhra Pradesh were killed by alleged CPI (Maoist) cadres while travelling to a public function. The appellants, accused nos. 46 and 47 among 45 named accused, were arrested in October 2018 and charged under provisions of the IPC, UAPA and the Explosives Substances Act for allegedly planting a landmine, providing shelter/logistic support to Maoists, and being in telephone contact with a co-accused already granted bail by the High Court. They had been in custody for over four and a half years without charges even being framed, with 144 prosecution witnesses yet to be examined.
The Supreme Court scrutinised the evidence relied on by the prosecution and found much of it legally weak: the confessional statements recorded in the "Mediators' Report and Seizure Panchnama" were prima facie inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and the claimed "discoveries" under Section 27 did not meet the legal test laid down in Pulukuri Kottaya and Jaffar Hussain Dastagir because the accused's statements did not actually lead to the discovery of any new fact. The Court also noted that a similarly-placed co-accused (no. 84) had already secured bail from the High Court on materially the same call-record evidence. Applying the "prima facie true" standard under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, the Court held that, taking the prosecution's own material at face value, there were no reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against the appellants were prima facie true. Given the prolonged custody, unframed charges, and slow pace of trial, the Court set aside the lower court's bail denial and directed the Special Judge to release the appellants on appropriate conditions within a week, clarifying these were only prima facie observations that would not bind the trial.
Even under UAPA's stringent bail bar, courts will look closely at whether the prosecution's evidence, such as confessional "discovery" statements, actually meets basic admissibility standards; long pre-trial custody with no realistic prospect of an early trial weighs heavily in favour of bail.
