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.
Under a 1968 Will, one Tulsi Ram left his land half to his son (the appellant) absolutely, and half to his second wife Ram Devi only for her lifetime use, with the property reverting fully to the appellant after her death and an express bar on her transferring it. Ram Devi and her daughter nonetheless attempted, over decades of litigation, to convert this into full ownership: first via a collusive court decree, and later by Ram Devi selling parts of the land to several buyers (the respondents) while litigation was still pending. Courts repeatedly held in an earlier round of litigation (which went up to the Supreme Court) that Ram Devi had only a limited life interest, yet the Punjab & Haryana High Court in a later second appeal ruled in favour of the buyers, holding Ram Devi's interest had matured into absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court, holding that Section 14(2) of the Act, not Section 14(1), governed this case, because the Will granted Ram Devi a genuinely new and restricted interest (limited to her lifetime, with income for her maintenance) rather than merely recognising or confirming a pre-existing right to maintenance. Relying on its own precedent in V. Tulasamma, the Court explained that Section 14(1) enlarges a Hindu woman's limited estate into full ownership only when the instrument merely confirms a pre-existing right (like maintenance); where a will creates a genuinely new restricted title, as here, Section 14(2) applies and the limitation stands. The Court also held the High Court wrongly distinguished the binding earlier round of litigation (which had already conclusively held Ram Devi's interest was limited) and wrongly treated the respondent-purchasers as bona fide buyers, since they bought the land from Ram Devi during pending litigation that ultimately went against her. The buyers could not get better title than what Ram Devi herself had.
A person who is given only a limited, lifetime interest in property under a Will (as opposed to property given to confirm an existing right like maintenance) cannot pass full ownership to a buyer: a purchaser can never acquire better title to property than what the seller actually possessed, especially when buying land that is still under active litigation.
