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 husband, a retired Air Force Wing Commander, filed for divorce in 1996 against his wife, a retired schoolteacher, alleging cruelty and desertion after the couple's relationship broke down when he was posted to Madras in 1984 and she chose to stay back with their children. The District Court granted the divorce, but the High Court (both Single Bench and Division Bench) reversed it, finding the husband had failed to prove cruelty or desertion, noting the wife had lived with him for 21 years, raised their three children, and never showed intent to permanently end the relationship. By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, the husband was about 89 and the wife about 82, having lived separately for decades, and the husband now argued alternatively that the marriage should be dissolved as irretrievably broken down using the Court's special power under Article 142 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the husband had not proved either cruelty or desertion under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, applying settled principles that cruelty requires conduct seriously and unreasonably affecting the other spouse, and desertion requires an intentional, unjustified, permanent abandonment (animus deserendi), neither of which was established here. On the alternative plea for divorce on "irretrievable breakdown," the Court relied on the recent Constitution Bench ruling in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, which held that Article 142 divorce-by-breakdown is a discretionary power to be used with great care, not a right or a "strait-jacket formula," and requires weighing factors like duration of separation, effect on dependents, and complete justice to both parties. The Court held that dissolving the marriage here would not serve "complete justice" because the wife, who had maintained the relationship and cared for the family since 1963 despite the husband's hostility, was still willing to care for him and did not wish to bear the social stigma of being labelled a "divorcee," and her sentiments deserved respect. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the marriage was not dissolved.
Long separation alone does not automatically prove desertion or entitle a spouse to divorce, and the Supreme Court's special Article 142 power to dissolve an "irretrievably broken" marriage is a discretionary tool for complete justice, not an automatic right, and a genuinely willing, non-consenting spouse's sentiments can outweigh the other side's wish to formally end the marriage.
