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.
Sushila married Devender Singh (appellant no. 1) in October 2007 and went missing from her matrimonial home in April 2008, about six months later; her body was recovered ten days later from a river near her in-laws' village. The trial court acquitted Devender Singh, his brother Jagdish Singh, and his mother Kunja Devi of dowry-death, cruelty and criminal-conspiracy charges, but the Uttarakhand High Court reversed the acquittal on the State's appeal, convicting all three and sentencing them to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The convicted family members appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court explained that once a death occurs within seven years of marriage under abnormal circumstances, and the woman was shown to have suffered dowry-related cruelty or harassment "soon before" death, Section 113B of the Evidence Act raises a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death: a presumption the accused must then rebut. It found the trial court had wrongly analysed the case as if the charge were murder rather than dowry death, whereas the High Court correctly applied Section 304B. Consistent testimony from the deceased's mother and brothers about specific dowry demands (Rs. 2 lakh or a house in Haridwar) and harassment shortly before her disappearance, combined with medical evidence that she suffered injuries and blood loss before entering the water (ruling out an accidental fall or drowning), satisfied the ingredients against the husband, who failed to rebut the presumption. However, the Court found no specific evidence tying the brother and mother-in-law (who lived in a separate house, as shown by separate ration cards) to any individual act of dowry demand or conspiracy, and gave them the benefit of doubt. The appeal was therefore partly allowed: the husband's conviction was upheld and he was ordered to surrender within two weeks, while the brother's and mother's convictions were set aside and they were released.
In a dowry-death case, the law presumes guilt against a person shown to have subjected the deceased to dowry-related cruelty or harassment shortly before her death, shifting the burden onto the accused to disprove it, but that presumption applies individually, and relatives cannot be convicted merely by association without specific evidence connecting each of them to the demand or harassment.
