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 respondent booked a large apartment in the developer's "Windchants" project in Gurgaon for about Rs. 2.36 crore under a construction-linked payment plan, with the Apartment Buyer's Agreement promising possession within 42 months of its execution (December 2012). The developer failed to deliver possession within that period, obtaining the occupation certificate only years later and offering possession in mid-2018. The buyer approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking a full refund with 24% interest rather than accepting the developer's contractual "delay compensation" clause of Rs. 7.50 per square foot per month, and the Commission ordered a refund of the amount paid with 9% interest; both the developer and the buyer separately appealed to the Supreme Court, the developer contesting the refund itself and the buyer seeking a higher interest rate.
The Supreme Court held that a one-sided Apartment Buyer's Agreement that heavily favours the developer (such as capping the buyer's remedy to a token delay-compensation figure while leaving the buyer to bear all the risk of the developer's continuing delay) amounts to an unfair trade practice, following its earlier ruling in Pioneer Urban Land v. Govind Raghvan, and that a consumer is not bound to accept possession years late and can instead seek a refund with interest. It clarified that the Consumer Protection Act and the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) do not exclude each other but operate as parallel remedies that a consumer may choose between, and that the Consumer Commission has the power under Section 14 of the Act to direct a refund. On interest, the Court held that to be truly restitutionary, interest must run separately from the date of each individual payment made by the buyer over the years, not just from the date of the last payment as the Commission had ordered, so it partly allowed the buyer's appeal to that extent, while upholding the 9% interest rate as fair and rejecting the buyer's demand for 24%.
A homebuyer is not bound by a builder's one-sided contract clause that caps compensation for delay to a token amount. If possession is delayed unreasonably, the buyer can seek a full refund with interest running from each payment date, and can choose to pursue this remedy under the Consumer Protection Act even where RERA also applies.
