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.
This is a common judgment disposing of a huge batch of appeals (well over 200 tagged matters) filed by the Delhi Development Authority, the Government of NCT of Delhi, and other state agencies against Delhi High Court orders that had declared various decades-old land acquisitions (originally begun under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, mostly between 1957-2006) to have "lapsed" under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because compensation had not been paid or possession had not been taken. Because these state agencies filed their Special Leave Petitions very late, they first needed the Supreme Court to condone (excuse) the delay in filing before their appeals could even be heard. The DDA vs. Tejpal matter (SLP(C) No. 26697/2019) was one of the appeals in this batch, singled out because the DDA specifically alleged that the respondent-landowners in this and other similar cases had suppressed material facts (such as being merely subsequent purchasers of already-acquired land, or the land having already vested in a Gaon Sabha (village council)) when they obtained the "lapsed" declaration from the High Court.
The Supreme Court held that, without giving a final finding on the truth of the suppression allegations, the DDA had made out a prima facie case that certain landowners (grouped in "List A" of the judgment, including Tejpal) may have concealed relevant facts from the High Court. Since such concealment, if proven, would strip the landowners of the right to rely on the delay, the Court found this sufficient reason to excuse the state's delay in filing for these particular cases. Rather than deciding the disputed facts itself, the Court remanded (sent back) these List A cases to the Delhi High Court for a proper fact-finding inquiry into the suppression allegations. For other categories of cases in the same batch, the Court laid out different outcomes (e.g., de-tagging, or fresh acquisition under the 2013 Act with compensation valued as of 01.01.2014), but for cases like Tejpal's, the matter goes back to the High Court to determine the truth about the alleged suppression before the lapse question can be finally decided.
Courts take allegations of concealment or suppression of facts very seriously, even at an advanced stage of litigation, and a credible, prima facie case of concealment can itself be a valid ground for the other side's delay to be excused and the matter reopened for closer scrutiny.
