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.
Transfer Petition (Criminal) · 2026 INSC 1060
Where a marriage has irretrievably broken down and the parties reach a genuine, voluntary settlement, including on alimony, the Supreme Court can use its Article 142 powers to grant a mutual-consent divorce and close out all related litigation in one stroke, without requiring the usual statutory waiting period.
Writ Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1061
In long-running, complex litigation involving apportioned government liabilities across states, the Supreme Court can use a mechanism like a retired-judge committee plus periodic compliance affidavits to bring genuine finality, including firm timelines, transparency obligations, and interest for delayed payment, rather than leaving matters open-ended.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1062
In an "as is where is" liquidation auction, a bidder who voluntarily accepts the auction terms cannot later resile from a forfeiture clause by citing regulatory caps or after-the-fact excuses for non-payment: courts will enforce the auction notice's own conditions.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8338-DB
Once someone is released from custody because the police failed to properly communicate the grounds of arrest, the police cannot simply re-arrest them by adding new charges: a specific, court-supervised procedure with senior-officer accountability must be followed, or the re-arrest itself becomes illegal.
Bail Application · 2026:DHC:8308
In economic-offence cases, bail can still be granted where the method used to quantify the alleged financial evasion is not adequately justified, and where the apprehension of re-offending is speculative rather than evidence-based.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8323
A parole claim must be backed by a genuine, verifiable application to the competent jail authority: courts will scrutinise irregularities like an incomplete address, an unexplained thumb mark, or reliance on a mere friend's affidavit rather than close family.
Bail Application · 2026:DHC:8337
Courts can grant short, strictly time-bound interim bail purely on humanitarian/compassionate grounds (such as caring for a seriously ill family member), even while a case remains pending trial and an earlier bail plea has failed.
Bail Application · 2026:DHC:8312
Courts will not repeatedly re-examine a bail plea already rejected on merits unless the applicant can point to a genuine change in circumstances since the earlier order.
First Appeal from Order · 2026:DHC:8334
Under the no-fault compensation scheme for railway accidents, a valid ticket-holder injured while attempting to board a train, even carelessly, is generally entitled to compensation unless the railway can show a deliberate, conscious exposure to danger, not mere negligence.
6171 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.
Rev. Salusbury Fynes Davenport, a man of substantial property, died in 1972 in Ooty leaving a Will executed in 1969 that named the firm M/s King and Partridge as executor. The firm's then senior partner obtained probate of the Will in 1972 and, by 1973, had filed the required inventory and final accounts with the court, apparently completing distribution of the estate with no objections at the time. Decades later, in 2016, one Smt. Mary Brigit (whose successors include the petitioner, A. Wilson Prince) sought a copy of the probate and, when refused, filed a writ petition in 2018 asking the court to direct that a copy of the Will and probate be furnished to her. It emerged that the original case records had been destroyed in 1998 under the Destruction of Records Act, 1917, and neither the executor's firm (after a thorough search) nor the district court could locate the original Will. The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no direction could be issued to supply what no longer existed.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, agreeing the High Court had no way to grant the relief sought. It acknowledged that, in principle, an original probated Will ought to be preserved and not destroyed, and that it may have been mishandled (possibly returned to the executor per the practice of the time, possibly lost, or possibly destroyed in error) but after more than fifty years, it was impossible to establish which of these actually happened. The Court found it particularly significant that the writ petitioner (Smt. Mary Brigit) admitted in her own petition that she had never seen the Will or its contents, and only learned of the probate proceedings secondhand from a bank, decades after the fact, while still claiming to be a beneficiary. The Court described this as the petitioner going on "a treasure hunt, if not a wild goose chase," and held that courts cannot order an investigation into a lost document merely on the guesswork of someone who has never even seen it and cannot show any concrete stake in its contents.
Courts cannot compel production of an old document, or order an inquiry into what happened to it, based purely on a claimant's suspicion or hope that they might be a beneficiary: a petitioner seeking such relief must first show some concrete basis for the claimed entitlement, not merely that a very old record has gone missing.
