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.
Bhagyoday Cooperative Bank had obtained an arbitral award in 1988 (under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act) against a partnership firm whose partners included the Patel brothers, and later obtained an execution certificate in 1995 treating the award as a civil court decree. Its first execution petition (filed in one court) was dismissed for default/withdrawn, and a second execution petition was later filed in a different court in 2006. Separately, in unrelated proceedings against another firm involving the same Patel brothers and their mother (who had stood as guarantor), the mother's property was auctioned for Rs. 39.25 lakh, and after her death an excess amount remained in court deposit, payable to her sons including the Patel brothers. The Bank sought to attach and appropriate that deposited excess amount (via a "garnishee" order under Order 21 Rule 46A of the CPC) toward satisfying its own 1988 award against the Patel brothers. The Execution Court allowed this, but the Gujarat High Court set the order aside, holding the second execution petition was not maintainable (since the decree had not been formally "transferred" under Sections 38-39 CPC) and that the garnishee procedure had been misapplied without first attaching the debt as legally required. The Bank appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court largely sided with the Bank on the maintainability issues but agreed with the High Court on the procedural flaw. It held that dismissal of the first execution petition for default did not bar a fresh execution petition filed within the limitation period, and that Sections 38-39 CPC (governing transfer of decrees between courts) did not apply here at all, because the original award was passed by an arbitral/adjudicatory authority under the Cooperative Societies Act, not by a "Court" within the meaning of the CPC, relying on its own precedent in Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. Abdul Samad that an arbitral award enforceable "as if" a decree can be executed in any court of competent jurisdiction without a formal transfer order. However, the Court agreed the Execution Court erred procedurally: money lying in court deposit could not be reached through the Order 21 Rule 46A "garnishee" mechanism (which requires a prior valid attachment under Rule 46 and presupposes a genuine debtor-creditor relationship, which did not exist here since neither the deceased mother nor the court's own officer/Nazir was a "debtor" to the judgment-debtors in the relevant sense). Instead, the correct route was Order 21 Rule 52, which governs attachment of property already in the custody of a court. The Supreme Court therefore treated the earlier flawed order as if it had been passed under Rule 52, allowed the Bank to proceed against the deposited sum (up to Rs. 12 lakh, since the balance had already been permitted to be withdrawn by the respondents), and remitted the matter to the Execution Court to also examine the Patel brothers' objection that the Bank had not properly accounted for a cross-award due to them.
A decree-holder is not barred from filing a fresh execution petition in a different court merely because an earlier one was dismissed for default, provided it is filed within the limitation period, and an arbitral/statutory award enforceable "as a decree" can be executed in any court of competent jurisdiction without needing a formal inter-court transfer order, but a decree-holder trying to reach money already lying in a court's own deposit must use the correct legal mechanism (attachment of property in court custody under Order 21 Rule 52), not the "garnishee" procedure meant for genuine third-party debts.
