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.
In the early 2000s, CIDCO (Navi Mumbai's planning authority) allotted a plot in Sector 30A, Vashi, originally reserved for an IT Park, to the Developer for commercial/residential use at a concessional rate, after converting the land use amid an IT-sector downturn. The allotment was challenged through two PILs, and the Bombay High Court in 2014 found the allotment irregular and ordered restoration of the plot to its original condition with delivery of vacant possession back to CIDCO: effectively requiring demolition of the mall/hotel complex built on it by then. By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, two decades had passed, two government-appointed committees (Sankaran and Banthia) had separately examined the irregularity and possible remedies, and thousands of employees and businesses were operating out of the completed structure.
The Supreme Court held that although the original allotment was undoubtedly irregular, given the profound and irreversible economic and social consequences that had since crystallised, public interest was better served by a rigorously supervised regularisation with full financial restitution rather than demolition. It accepted the Banthia Committee's approach that once an allotment is declared illegal, its original concessional price becomes irrelevant: regularisation is a fresh, prospective grant of legality for which the Developer must pay the land's true market value as of the date of the High Court's 2014 judgment, not the price it paid in 2003. Using the government's own ready-reckoner rate for that period, the Court fixed the total amount payable (with 8% interest from December 2014 to April 2026) at approximately Rs. 318.31 crore, adjusted for what was already paid, plus a further Rs. 1 crore in lieu of an unfulfilled garden-development obligation. On payment within four months, the allotment stands regularised, and the High Court's demolition/restoration direction was set aside to that extent; a related dispute over an adjoining plot was left to the High Court to decide separately.
Even where a government land allotment is found legally irregular, courts can choose supervised regularisation with full market-value restitution over demolition when the irregularity's remedy would otherwise cause disproportionate real-world harm, but the price of legalising an illegal grant is the land's current true value, not the original discounted price.
