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.
HSBC PI Holdings invested US$60 million in Avitel Post Studioz Limited in 2011 on the representation that the funds were needed to service a contract with the BBC, which turned out to be non-existent, with the money allegedly siphoned off. HSBC won a Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) award of US$60 million for fraudulent misrepresentation in 2014, and after years of litigation (including a prior Supreme Court ruling that the fraud dispute was arbitrable, and contempt proceedings that sent Avitel's directors to jail for defying court orders), the Bombay High Court allowed enforcement of the award in India. Avitel challenged that enforcement before the Supreme Court, arguing the award was tainted by bias of the tribunal's presiding arbitrator.
Avitel argued the presiding arbitrator, Christopher Lau, failed to disclose that he was an independent non-executive director of two companies (Wing Tai and Neptune) with alleged links to HSBC's corporate family, which it claimed showed bias under the IBA Guidelines on Conflict of Interest. The Supreme Court held that when a bias objection is raised at the enforcement stage of a foreign award under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act, courts must apply a narrow, internationally-recognised standard of "public policy": enforcement can be refused only if it would violate the country's most basic notions of morality and justice, not by applying stricter domestic bias standards. Examining the facts, the Court found Wing Tai and Neptune were not "affiliates" of HSBC under the IBA Guidelines and no reasonable third person would doubt the arbitrator's impartiality, so there was no disclosure failure or bias. The Court also noted the objection was never raised before the Singapore courts (the seat of arbitration) within the limitation period, and such belated bias challenges at the enforcement stage should be discouraged. The appeals were dismissed and the foreign award's enforcement was upheld.
Indian courts will enforce foreign arbitral awards unless there is a clear, demonstrable violation of basic morality and justice: vague or belated allegations of arbitrator bias raised only at the enforcement stage, without first challenging the award in the country where the arbitration took place, are unlikely to succeed.
