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.
Land in Village Chattarpur, Delhi, was notified for acquisition in 1980 for the planned development of Delhi, with an award announced in 1987. Over the following decades, the acquisition was challenged in a tangled web of writ petitions and Supreme Court appeals (Balak Ram, Abhey Ram, Gurdip Singh Uban-I and II, Sudan Singh, Balbir Singh, among others), some of which briefly quashed the underlying Section 6 notification before those rulings were themselves set aside by later Supreme Court decisions. The respondent land owners obtained an interim stay of dispossession in their own writ petition in 1999. When the new 2013 Land Acquisition Act came into force with Section 24(2) (which deems acquisition proceedings lapsed if possession was not taken or compensation not paid for five years), the Delhi High Court held in 2014 that the acquisition of this land had lapsed. DDA appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Court traced the entire, decades-long litigation history and concluded that the land owners' own interim stay orders, obtained through their own writ petition, were what prevented DDA from taking possession, meaning there was no "stay-free" period of five years before the 2013 Act came into force that could trigger a lapse under Section 24(2). Relying on its Constitution Bench ruling in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, the Court applied the equitable principle that a litigant cannot benefit from delay caused by their own interim orders ("no one can take advantage of their own wrong"), and that the government cannot be penalized for being disabled by a court's own stay from acting. It also clarified that certain conflicting precedents (Sudan Singh/Balbir Singh) which had suggested the entire acquisition notification stood quashed had themselves been overruled by later three-judge Bench rulings (Abhey Ram, Gurdip Singh Uban-I and II), so the land owners could not rely on them. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order set aside, and the land owners' writ petition (claiming lapse) was dismissed.
A land owner who obtains a court stay preventing the government from taking possession cannot later claim that the resulting delay caused the acquisition to "lapse" under the law: a party cannot profit from delay of its own making, and courts will exclude periods covered by such self-obtained interim orders when computing statutory deadlines like the five-year lapse period under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act.
