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.
Gian Chand, a junior engineer, owned a plot of land and orally agreed to sell it to Amar Nath (the first defendant) for Rs. 55,000. When Amar Nath allegedly could not arrange the full amount, Gian Chand executed a registered special power of attorney in favour of a second defendant (a deed writer) to sell the land on his behalf. Gian Chand later claimed he had cancelled and taken back this power of attorney after the deal with Amar Nath fell through, but the second defendant went on to execute a sale deed to Amar Nath for Rs. 30,000. Gian Chand sued, claiming the sale was fraudulent and void since the power of attorney had already been cancelled; both the Trial Court and the first Appellate Court rejected this claim and upheld the sale, but the High Court, in a second appeal, reversed those concurrent findings and declared Gian Chand the owner, prompting Amar Nath's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined the actual documentary evidence, including two letters exchanged between Gian Chand and the second defendant months after the claimed cancellation date, and found they directly contradicted Gian Chand's story: in one letter he asked the second defendant to find a buyer and send money urgently, with no mention of any cancellation, and in the other the second defendant openly referred to having executed the sale as power of attorney holder. The Court held that Gian Chand had not proved he ever validly cancelled the power of attorney (he never got it cancelled at the Sub-Registrar's office or gave notice of cancellation to anyone), and even if he had informally revoked it, there was no proof this was ever communicated to Amar Nath, an unconnected third party who could not be bound by an undisclosed private arrangement. The Court criticized the High Court for disturbing concurrent factual findings of two lower courts in a second appeal, which under Section 100 CPC is meant only for genuine questions of law, not re-appreciation of evidence. The Court also noted the power of attorney contained no restriction on the minimum sale price, so a separate side-agreement about a Rs. 55,000 floor price could not by itself invalidate the sale deed. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and each party was left to bear its own costs.
A person who wants to revoke a power of attorney must do so formally and, crucially, communicate that revocation to anyone dealing with the attorney-holder: an undisclosed or merely private cancellation cannot be used to undo a sale made to an innocent third party; and appellate courts hearing a "second appeal" on a point of law should not casually overturn factual findings that two lower courts had already agreed on.
