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.
B.S. Rawat, an Assistant Registrar at Delhi Technological University (DTU), tendered his resignation in 2016, which was accepted by an officer holding only additional charge of Vice-Chancellor, not the Board of Management (BOM), the actual competent authority. Rawat took his relieving certificates, then four months later sought to withdraw the resignation, claiming it was never validly accepted. Meanwhile, after joining National Institute of Technology (NIT) Calicut, he tried to resign there too but sought to withdraw that resignation as well after being selected for a different job, and NIT Calicut refused. Two sets of litigation followed in the Delhi and Kerala High Courts, both eventually reaching the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that although the officer who accepted Rawat's DTU resignation lacked authority, the BOM's subsequent ratification of that acceptance validated it retrospectively, relating back to the original date, meaning there was no resignation left for Rawat to withdraw four months later. The Court also invoked the principle that Rawat, having taken all benefits of his exit (relieving order, no-dues certificate, experience certificate) and used that certificate to secure a new job at NIT Calicut, could not later treat his own resignation as a nullity. On the NIT Calicut matter, the Court held that under the applicable service rules, a resignation takes effect upon acceptance by the competent authority (not upon expiry of the notice period or communication), and the employer's discretion to refuse a late withdrawal request was lawfully exercised since Rawat's own resignation letter had stated he was "not interested to work anymore."
An employee cannot benefit from an exit (certificates, relief from duties, using it to get a new job) and then later claim, when convenient, that the same resignation was never valid. The law will not let a person "have his cake and eat it too." Once a competent authority ratifies an earlier unauthorised acceptance of resignation, the ratification is treated as valid from the original date, closing the door on a later withdrawal request.
