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.
Decades ago, land belonging to several landowners in Bangalore was acquired for road-widening (Bellary Road and Jayamahal Road). Instead of cash compensation, the Karnataka Government had agreed to compensate the landowners with Transferable Development Rights (TDRs): a right that lets a landowner build extra construction elsewhere in lieu of land taken. Despite multiple Supreme Court orders over the years (dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024) directing the state authorities (BBMP, the Bangalore civic body, and the Karnataka Government) to issue these TDR certificates, the authorities repeatedly delayed and imposed shifting conditions, prompting the landowners (including Smt. Indrakshi Devi and others) to file multiple contempt petitions accusing the officials of wilfully disobeying the Court's orders. (Note: the digest listing named the parties "Indrakashi Devi vs. The State of Karnataka" under C.A. No. 3309-3310 of 1997; the PDF is a common judgment disposing of six tagged contempt petitions arising from several connected 1997 civil appeals over the same underlying dispute, in which Civil Appeal No. 3309 of 1997 is indeed Smt. Indrakshi Devi's appeal and the Karnataka Government/BBMP are the real respondents-in-interest throughout, even though the specific contempt petition's caption names the individual official "Rajneesh Goel" as respondent, so this is confirmed as the correct judgment, not a mismatch.)
The Supreme Court found that the state authorities had indeed created a "faux pas" situation by failing to comply with its earlier orders and by imposing fresh conditions inconsistent with what had previously been directed. It recalled the portion of its 19.03.2024 order that had added extra conditions, clarified that the TDR value already fixed (under the Karnataka Stamp Act guidance value) must be honoured, and directed BBMP/the competent authority to issue the TDR certificates to the respective claimants within six weeks, backed by a compliance affidavit, failing which the BBMP Commissioner and competent authority would have to personally appear before the Court. It also awarded costs of Rs. 1 lakh to each of the complainants (except one) for having been put through this prolonged non-compliance, while clarifying that the order would not affect the merits of other still-pending appeals before a larger bench.
When authorities are directed by the Supreme Court to grant a benefit like land compensation or development rights, they cannot keep citizens waiting indefinitely through shifting conditions or bureaucratic delay. The Court can enforce its own orders through contempt jurisdiction, order compliance within a fixed timeline, and personally hold accountable the specific officials responsible if they fail to comply, in addition to awarding costs to the aggrieved parties.
