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.
A roughly 5-acre plot in Mumbai's Sahar area was claimed by the Gonsalves family (later succeeded by Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd.) under an 1894 Deed of Exchange, while various revenue authorities over decades repeatedly flip-flopped on whether the land belonged to the family or had vested in the State Government. In 1995 the State's Revenue Minister ruled in the family's favour, but in 1998 that order was reversed in an ex-parte proceeding where the Gonsalves family was never given a hearing; in 2007 the Minister recalled that 1998 order (restoring the family's ownership) after finding it violated natural justice. Two individuals with lengthy criminal histories then filed a public interest litigation challenging this 2007 order, and the Bombay High Court sided with them, reviving the order against the family, even though the State Government itself had filed affidavits agreeing that the family/Esteem Properties held valid title.
The Supreme Court held the PIL was not maintainable because it was, at its core, a private ownership dispute between the State and a private party, not a matter of genuine public interest, and the petitioners' credentials and motives, including their criminal antecedents, should have been scrutinised more carefully before the High Court entertained the case. The Court reaffirmed that courts must verify a PIL petitioner's bona fides and ensure real public interest is at stake, per its earlier ruling in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, and noted the State itself had conceded title to the appellants, further undercutting any claim of public harm. Since the 1998 order (which the PIL sought to revive) had been passed without giving the Gonsalves family a hearing, a clear breach of the mandatory notice requirement in Section 258 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, its 2007 recall was justified, and the Court allowed the appeals with costs, restoring the family's/Esteem Properties' title.
Public interest litigation is meant for genuine public harm, not as a backdoor route for private or ill-motivated litigants to reopen a private title dispute the government itself has already accepted; and no administrative or quasi-judicial order that revokes someone's rights can stand if it was passed without giving that person a hearing, regardless of how many rounds of litigation preceded it.
