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.
Wind power generators (including Renew Wind Energy) signed 25-year Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam (which buys power for Gujarat's electricity distributors) under a "Renewable Energy Certificate" (REC) scheme in 2012, agreeing to a fixed tariff of Rs. 2.64/unit plus the ability to separately trade RECs for extra income, instead of taking a higher fixed "preferential tariff" of Rs. 3.56/unit (which came without REC benefits). In 2013, the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission amended the REC rules so that, going forward, the price of power sold under this scheme had to exactly equal (not merely "not exceed") the buyer's average pooled power cost. Years after signing their PPAs, and only after finding this arrangement less profitable than expected, the generators applied to Gujarat's State Electricity Regulatory Commission to have their already-fixed Rs. 2.64/unit tariff replaced with a fluctuating year-by-year "average pooled purchase cost." The State Commission and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) both sided with the generators, also holding (without real evidence) that the generators had been coerced into signing the original PPAs on unfair terms.
The Supreme Court reversed both the State Commission and APTEL. It held that the 2013 amendment to the REC Regulations was prospective only, as the regulator itself had clarified when making the amendment, and could not be used to reopen the terms of PPAs that were freely negotiated by commercially sophisticated parties years earlier. The Court found the generators' sudden claim, made years later, that they had been "coerced" into the deal to be legally unsubstantiated: a plea of coercion or fraud requires specific, detailed factual pleadings and evidence, not a bare assertion, and APTEL had "rubber stamped" this finding without any real analysis. The Court also emphasized the general principle that once regulators fix a tariff which parties freely incorporate into a signed contract, that contract's terms bind the parties for its duration and cannot later be re-opened simply because market conditions shifted in one party's favour. The appeals were allowed with costs, and the orders of the State Commission and APTEL were set aside.
Once a business freely signs a long-term supply/pricing contract (such as a 25-year power purchase agreement) under an existing regulatory scheme, it generally cannot later ask regulators to rewrite the price simply because a subsequent regulatory change or shifting market conditions make the original deal less profitable, and a claim of "coercion" to escape a contract must be backed by specific facts and evidence, not raised as an afterthought years later.
