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.
After partition, a family of refugees from East Pakistan settled in Siliguri, West Bengal, and the eldest brother, Benode Behari Basak (a government servant), applied on behalf of the whole seven-member family for a government rehabilitation land allotment. Because he was already a state government employee, the allotment and subsequent lease deed (1975) were instead recorded solely in the name of his wife, Hem Prova Basak, even though records showed the allotment was meant for the family as a unit and the house was built from the joint income of all three brothers. Years later, Hem Prova Basak sued to evict her husband's two brothers and their families from the jointly-built house, claiming to be its sole, absolute owner, even though the original lease in her exclusive name had by then been officially cancelled (with freehold deeds ordered to be issued to all family members) and her own separate suit challenging that cancellation had been withdrawn.
The Trial Court had dismissed Hem Prova Basak's suit and ruled the 1975 lease deed illegal, but the First Appellate Court and the Calcutta High Court reversed this and ruled in her favour. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by disregarding undisputed affidavits and official correspondence clearly showing the allotment was meant to benefit the entire refugee family, not one individual, and that the wife had merely been named as a matter of administrative convenience because her husband was already a government employee. The Court also held that once the exclusive lease deed in her name had been cancelled by the government (with freehold deeds directed to be issued to all family members) and her challenge to that cancellation was withdrawn, the very foundation of her eviction suit had disappeared, so the suit itself should have been dismissed. Finding the suit was filed to maliciously grab family property meant for the collective benefit of the rehabilitated family, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court and First Appellate Court orders and restored the Trial Court's decision dismissing the suit.
Property or land allotted under government welfare/rehabilitation schemes for the benefit of an entire family cannot be claimed as the exclusive personal property of the one family member in whose name it happens to be recorded for administrative convenience. Courts will look at the real intent and documented history behind such allotments rather than bare legal title.
