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.
MBL Infrastructures Limited defaulted on loans from a consortium of banks, and its promoter, Anjanee Kumar Lakhotiya, had furnished personal guarantees that some banks invoked before insolvency proceedings began. After RBL Bank triggered corporate insolvency resolution under Section 7 of the IBC, the promoter submitted a resolution plan that was eventually approved by the Committee of Creditors, even after Section 29A (which disqualifies certain persons, including guarantors whose guarantees have been invoked, from submitting resolution plans) was introduced and later amended. The National Company Law Tribunal and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal had held the promoter was not disqualified because his guarantee liability had not "crystallised," prompting Bank of Baroda (a dissenting creditor) to appeal to the Supreme Court on the scope of Section 29A(h).
The Supreme Court held that Section 29A(h) is triggered by the mere existence of an enforceable personal guarantee that has been invoked by any creditor once an insolvency application is admitted. It need not be invoked specifically by the creditor who filed the application, since insolvency proceedings are proceedings "in rem" benefiting the class of creditors as a whole. Applying this, the Court found the promoter's guarantees had indeed been invoked by three financial creditors before the resolution plan was submitted, so his plan should not have been entertained, and the lower forums were wrong to treat the issue as barred by the earlier withdrawal of a related appeal (since no adjudication on merits had occurred then). However, on the specific facts: the plan having already secured the required creditor majority, remained operational since April 2018 with fresh capital infused, and safeguarding the interests of over 23,000 shareholders and thousands of employees. The Court declined to unwind the resolution plan, noting dissenting creditors' interests remained protected through liquidation-value payouts. The appeal was disposed of without disturbing the ongoing resolution plan, even though the promoter was technically ineligible under Section 29A(h).
A person who has given a personal guarantee that any creditor has invoked becomes ineligible under Section 29A(h) of the IBC to submit a resolution plan for the defaulting company, but courts may still decline to unwind an already-implemented, broadly-approved resolution plan where doing so would harm employees, shareholders and an ongoing business, showing that legal ineligibility and practical relief can diverge once a plan is far along.
