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 was engaged as a daily-wage Cleaner by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation in 1993 at Rs. 500/month, was orally terminated, and after years of litigation the Industrial Court in 2007 ordered his regularisation from the date he completed 180 days of service. The Corporation resisted compliance and only regularised him in 2011, attaching a fresh condition that full regularisation would require another five years of satisfactory service. The Labour Court in 2020 granted him back wages with 12% interest for the gap period (October 1993 to January 2011), but the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) set that order aside, prompting this appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the Industrial Court's 2007 finding, that the appellant was entitled to regularisation and back wages from the date he completed 180 days of service, had gone unchallenged and attained finality, and the High Court had erred by ignoring this in setting aside the 2020 Labour Court order. The Court rejected the Corporation's argument that the appellant was estopped from claiming benefits from an earlier date merely because he later accepted a 2011 appointment letter, noting that the letter's five-year condition for regularisation was itself an unfair exercise of the employer's unequal bargaining power against a worker who had already earned regularisation years before. The appeal was allowed and the Labour Court's award of Rs. 8,09,218 in back wages was restored, but the Court reduced the interest rate from 12% to 8% given the long period involved, and additionally awarded Rs. 1,00,000 as litigation costs, warning that the original 12% rate would revive if payment was not made within eight weeks.
An employer cannot use a later appointment letter with unfavourable conditions to defeat rights an employee has already secured through a final, unchallenged court order, accepting a job offer under unequal bargaining power does not amount to waiving previously vested legal entitlements like back wages and regularisation.
