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 the death of a successful lawyer-turned-politician, R.M. Patil, in 1977, his daughter and daughter-in-law sued for partition of his self-acquired properties among his five legal heirs (two daughters and three sons, including the appellant B.R. Patil). The Trial Court dismissed the partition claim, but the Karnataka High Court reversed this and ordered partition, granting each heir a 1/5th share in most of the properties, while excluding an item of law books as valueless. The appellant, who had lived in one of the disputed houses, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the suit should fail for not including certain alleged ancestral joint-family land and for not joining another branch of the family, and separately claiming he had acquired sole ownership of the house he lived in through long, exclusive possession ("ouster").
The Supreme Court held that a partition suit need not always include every property when the interests of justice permit a partial partition, and found no adequate evidence that the alleged additional ancestral land genuinely belonged to the joint family in a way requiring the other branch's inclusion. On the ouster claim, the Court reaffirmed settled law that a co-owner's possession is legally presumed to be on behalf of all co-owners, and can only become "adverse" if there is a clear, hostile declaration of exclusive title known to the other co-owners, combined with long, uninterrupted, exclusive possession: mere residence in a jointly-owned house does not suffice. The Court noted the appellant's own defence was self-contradictory: he claimed sole ownership by ouster of just one sister while simultaneously seeking only a 1/4th share (implicitly admitting the other three siblings' shares), which undermined any genuine claim of exclusive hostile title. It also upheld the High Court's inclusion of certain properties registered in a brother's (second defendant's) name as his separate acquisitions, since a family member can lawfully acquire independent property even within a joint family. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's partition order.
Living for decades in a house inherited jointly with siblings does not, by itself, convert a co-owner's shared right into sole ownership: a claim of "ouster" requires clear, unambiguous, hostile assertion of exclusive title communicated to the other co-owners, not just occupation without more.
