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.
Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. had, since 1983, granted shop licenses at its hotel premises to various shopkeepers. In 2020, it revoked these licenses, prompting the licensees (including respondent Alok Kumar Lodha) to sue in the Delhi High Court seeking a declaration that their licenses were irrevocable and perpetual. During the pendency of these suits, the licensee-plaintiffs sought to amend their plaints to also challenge mortgages the hotel had created over the premises in favour of various banks (some dating to the 1980s), and to implead those banks as defendants. The Delhi High Court allowed both the amendment and the impleadment, relying on the "plaintiff is dominus litis" principle and a precedent (Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal) concerning specific performance suits.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in allowing the amendment because it fundamentally changed the nature of the suits, from a challenge to license revocation into a challenge against decades-old mortgages, which would also cause misjoinder of causes of action. It clarified that the "dominus litis" principle (a plaintiff's right to choose whom to sue) only permits adding parties who are necessary or proper to the existing dispute, not unrelated third parties like mortgagee banks. The Court also found the High Court's reliance on Kasturi misplaced, since that case involved specific performance against subsequent purchasers of the very property in dispute: a materially different situation. Since the licensees were themselves aware, under their license agreements, that the hotel could mortgage the premises to fund its development, they could not belatedly challenge those mortgages in a suit about license revocation. All the appeals were allowed and the High Court's orders permitting amendment and impleadment were set aside, with no order as to costs.
A plaintiff cannot use an amendment application to fundamentally alter the character of a lawsuit or to drag in unrelated third parties (like a mortgagee bank) whose rights have no direct bearing on the original dispute; courts will disallow amendments that change the essential nature of the suit or cause misjoinder of unrelated claims.
