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.
I-Pay Clearing Services had a contract with ICICI Bank to develop and manage smart-card based loyalty programs for Hindustan Petroleum. I-Pay alleged the Bank abruptly and illegally terminated the agreement, causing it losses of over Rs. 50 crore, and claimed Rs. 95 crore in arbitration. A Sole Arbitrator awarded I-Pay Rs. 50 crore with 18% interest, without expressly recording a clear finding on the central disputed issue of whether the termination was actually illegal and abrupt. ICICI Bank challenged the award in the Bombay High Court under Section 34(1) of the Act, arguing the parties had already reached "accord and satisfaction" (a mutual settlement) and that the award ignored this evidence. I-Pay, instead of opposing the challenge outright, asked the High Court under Section 34(4) to send the matter back to the Arbitrator merely to add reasons, but the High Court refused and dismissed I-Pay's application, leading to this appeal.
The Supreme Court distinguished between a "finding" (a decision on a disputed issue) and "reasons" (the reasoning connecting evidence to a conclusion), holding that Section 34(4) can only be used to have the Arbitrator fill gaps in the reasoning behind a finding that was already made, not to supply a finding that was never made in the first place. Because the Arbitrator had not recorded any finding at all on the core disputed question (whether the contract was illegally and abruptly terminated), and appeared to have ignored key documentary evidence going to "accord and satisfaction" between the parties, this was not a curable defect eligible for remission back to the Arbitrator. The Court held that where an award suffers from patent illegality (such as the complete absence of a finding on a contentious issue, or ignoring material evidence) that is a ground for setting the award aside altogether under Section 34(1), not for sending it back for more reasoning under Section 34(4). The Court also clarified that remission under Section 34(4) is always discretionary for the reviewing court, not something a party can claim as of right merely by filing an application. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
In arbitration, a party cannot use the "send it back for more reasons" route under Section 34(4) to patch over an award that never actually decided the key disputed issue. If the arbitrator skipped a genuine finding or ignored crucial evidence, that is a fundamental defect to be tackled head-on in a Section 34(1) challenge, not fixed after the fact.
