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.
The appellants were directly recruited (by "nomination") as Assistant Conservators of Forest (ACF) in Maharashtra in 2016, after being selected in 2014 and completing mandatory training. The private respondents had instead been promoted to ACF directly from a lower post in 2014-15, without needing to undergo training. A Tribunal had earlier ruled that the appellants' salary and appointment should be backdated to the start of their training in 2014, and the state government accepted this and issued a resolution treating the training period as regular service for seniority purposes too. The promoted officers (who were not originally party to that case) then challenged this before the High Court, arguing that under the applicable recruitment rules, only the period after actually being appointed as ACF (i.e., after completing training) should count for seniority against promotees, and the High Court agreed with them, ruling that the appellants' seniority should run only from the date of their post-training appointment order, not from the date training began.
The Supreme Court held that statutory service rules must prevail over mere government resolutions, which cannot override or conflict with them. Examining the 1984 Rules governing promotion to the next-higher post of Divisional Forest Officer, the Court found a clear proviso stating that the period spent on training and probation "shall not be counted towards the requisite period of service" for direct recruits: this proviso would become meaningless if the appellants' training period were counted for seniority. Reading this together with the 1998 Recruitment Rules, which require successful completion of training before actual appointment, the Court agreed with the High Court that the government resolutions (relied on by the appellants) could give monetary compensation for the training period but could not be used to backdate seniority against promotees who had already been working in the post. The Court distinguished the precedents the appellants relied on, noting that seniority questions must be decided strictly by what the specific applicable rule says, not by general principles borrowed from other services' rules. The appeal was dismissed.
In government service disputes over seniority between direct recruits and promotees, a specific statutory rule (framed under the Constitution) always overrides an administrative resolution, even a government-issued resolution granting a benefit (like backdated pay) cannot be stretched to also confer seniority rights if the actual service rule says otherwise.
