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.
Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (HZL) generates its own electricity at a captive plant in Rajasthan and uses the distribution network of Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (AVVNL), a state power distribution company, to send that power ("wheel" it) to its other factories: an arrangement called "open access," governed by a 2006 agreement and regulations set by the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission. A dispute arose over how "inadvertent" excess electricity drawn beyond the agreed limit should be billed: the original agreement charged it at the cheaper "temporary supply" rate, but the Commission later, in September 2007, changed the rule so this excess would be billed at the costlier "regular supply" rate. AVVNL then tried to apply this costlier rate retrospectively, billing HZL for the period from mid-2006 onward, but the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity ruled the change could only apply from September 2007 onward (prospectively), prompting AVVNL's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Tribunal that the Commission's September 2007 order was not a mere clarification of the existing agreement but a substantial change to its terms. It removed the earlier link to "outage of generating unit" and switched the billing rate entirely from temporary to regular supply tariff. The Court held that such a substantial, financially significant alteration to a commercial agreement cannot be given retrospective effect, since doing so would unfairly prejudice the party (HZL) that had structured its dealings around the original terms; only corrections of clear typographical or unintentional errors could arguably relate back to the agreement's inception. The Court dismissed AVVNL's appeal, upholding prospective application of the changed tariff from 15 September 2007, and directed that money HZL had deposited under an earlier interim court order be adjusted against its future bills.
A regulator or contracting authority cannot dress up a substantive change to the financial terms of an existing agreement as a mere "clarification" and then apply it retrospectively: real changes to a commercial contract's terms take effect only from the date they are actually made, protecting the party that relied on the original terms.
