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 respondent, a Chinese government-owned company, had entered into a contract with Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. (BALCO) at Korba to provide design engineering and project management/technical services, which the Revenue treated as taxable "Consulting Engineer Services" under the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur confirmed a large service tax demand (over Rs. 10.4 crore) along with penalties, but the CESTAT (tribunal) set aside the entire demand, holding that during the relevant period (2003-2005) a "body corporate" like the respondent was not covered by the definition of "Consulting Engineer" since that definition, prior to a 2005 amendment, referred only to individuals, professionally qualified engineers, or engineering firms. The Revenue appealed this tribunal ruling to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that excluding a company/body corporate from the definition of "consulting engineer" while including individuals, proprietorships and partnership firms providing the identical service would create an unintelligible and irrational distinction with no basis in the statute's object, since the taxable event under the Finance Act is the provision of the service itself, not the legal form of the provider. Relying on the General Clauses Act's broad definition of "person" (which includes a company) and on consistent High Court precedent (Karnataka and Calcutta High Courts), the Court held that a body corporate was always covered within the meaning of "consulting engineer," even before the 2005 amendment which expressly added "body corporate" to the definition. It therefore set aside the CESTAT's order and held the respondent liable to pay service tax as a consulting engineer service provider, but since the CESTAT had only examined this one threshold issue and not the other grounds raised in the appeal, the Court remanded the matter back to CESTAT to decide the remaining issues on merits within three months.
Tax exemptions and tax nets cannot be evaded merely by structuring or characterizing a business as a "company" rather than an individual or partnership performing the identical service. Courts will look at the substance of the taxable activity, not the corporate form, when the statute's purpose does not intend such a distinction.
