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.
After Sucha Singh died in 1998, his widow and son (the plaintiffs) sued for declaration of title based on a will allegedly executed by him shortly before his death, challenging a mutation entry that had given his mother (and, through her, the appellant and other relatives) a 1/3 share. The defendants claimed the will was forged and that Sucha Singh had died intestate, so his mother inherited a share and later willed it to her other sons, including the appellant. The trial court believed the plaintiffs' will and decreed in their favour; the first appellate court reversed this, finding the will suspicious and upholding the mother's later will instead. The High Court, in a second appeal, then reinstated the trial court's decree in favour of the plaintiffs, which the appellant challenged before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court noted that when it first issued notice in 2017, the complaint was that the High Court had decided the second appeal without framing a "substantial question of law" as required. The Court explained that a later Constitution Bench ruling (Pankajakshi v. Chandrika) clarified that for Punjab and Haryana, second appeals are actually governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, not Section 100 CPC, so no substantial question of law needs to be framed, but the High Court's power to interfere with factual findings under Section 41 is still narrow, limited essentially to errors of law or procedure, not mere reappreciation of facts. Reviewing the High Court's judgment (delivered in 2013, before the Pankajakshi clarification), the Court found the High Court had reappreciated evidence without carefully engaging with the record, in a manner incompatible with the limited second-appeal jurisdiction. Rather than deciding the underlying factual dispute itself, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case back to the High Court to decide the second appeal afresh strictly within the bounds of Section 41, on a priority basis given the suit's age, without expressing any opinion on which side's claim was correct.
In second appeals from Punjab and Haryana, courts must confine themselves to correcting errors of law or procedure and cannot re-decide questions of fact simply because they would have weighed the evidence differently, and cases lingering for decades in litigation may still be sent back for a fresh, properly-bounded hearing rather than resolved outright by the Supreme Court.
