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 appellant took over a sick textile dyeing unit in Kerala for revival under the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985. As part of a rehabilitation package recommended by an Empowered Committee and later sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) in 2005, a March 2004 Kerala government order waived the unit's past sales-tax/works-contract-tax arrears and exempted future works-contract tax on fabric-processing activity. About 30 months later, in November 2006, the government withdrew this exemption under Section 10(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, reasoning that Section 10(1) only allows tax exemptions for a "class of persons," and this benefit was effectively being enjoyed by the appellant alone among similarly placed fabric-processing units in the state. The appellant challenged the withdrawal, but the Kerala High Court (both the Single Judge and a Division Bench) upheld it, leading to this appeal.
The Supreme Court held that tax exemption powers under the KGST Act could only be exercised for a defined class of persons, not to permanently benefit a single company, and since the appellant was the sole beneficiary among comparable industrial units, the 2004 exemption order was ultra vires Section 10(1) and could validly be withdrawn under Section 10(3). The Court also rejected the appellant's promissory-estoppel argument, reaffirming that this equitable doctrine cannot be used to compel the government to continue an exemption that was unlawful to begin with, and noted that a related 1994 government policy in any event capped such exemptions at a maximum of five years or until the company's net worth turned positive, whichever came first: a cap the appellant, now profitable, had already exceeded. Weighing the public interest in uniform taxation of similarly placed businesses against the appellant's individual claim, both judges concurred that the appeal must be dismissed, though Justice Joseph wrote separately to explain his own reasoning on whether a single company could constitute a "class" under the Act.
A tax exemption or government incentive granted informally through a rehabilitation scheme cannot override the specific statutory limits (such as the requirement to benefit a defined "class," not a single company) under which such exemptions are legally permitted, and promissory estoppel cannot force the government to keep honoring a promise that was unlawful when made.
