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 original defendant (owner of a small plot of land in Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, referred to in parts of the judgment as "Juglal"/"Jugalal") had entered into a 1996 agreement to sell the land to the plaintiff for Rs. 50,000 per acre, receiving Rs. 6,000 as earnest money, but the sale deed was never registered. The plaintiff sued for specific performance only in 2003, roughly seven to eight years after the agreement, and after the defendant's death, his legal heirs (the present appellants) contested the suit. The trial court decreed specific performance in the plaintiff's favour; the first appellate court modified this to a refund of earnest money instead, on grounds of hardship and doubts about the plaintiff's readiness and willingness; and the High Court, in a second appeal, restored the trial court's decree of specific performance, prompting the defendants' legal heirs to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had misread the record: it wrongly assumed the first appellate court had denied specific performance only on the narrow ground of "hardship" under Section 20(2)(b) of the Specific Relief Act, when in fact the first appellate court had also independently doubted the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract: a factual finding the High Court never addressed. The Court held that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC can be entertained only on a genuine "substantial question of law," and a High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or overturn factual findings of the first appellate court (the final court of fact) merely to reach a different conclusion; here, the question framed by the High Court was not even a proper question of law, let alone a substantial one. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, declined to restore the specific performance decree given the eight-year delay in filing suit and the plaintiff's own admission of the land's current market value, and instead directed the defendants' heirs to pay the plaintiffs Rs. 3,50,000 (representing the present value of the land) within eight weeks, failing which the original decree for specific performance would stand revived.
A High Court's power to interfere with facts in a second appeal is strictly limited to genuine, substantial questions of law. It cannot re-weigh evidence or reverse a lower appellate court's factual findings on delay, readiness and willingness merely because it disagrees, and litigants seeking specific performance of a property sale should act promptly rather than waiting years to enforce their rights.
