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 1980, a dispute over unpaid money for a buffalo led to a violent confrontation in a UP village: the debtor Rajkumar Singh arrived with several armed associates, including the appellant Karan Singh, and when the creditor Brahmapal Singh asked for his money, Rajkumar Singh shot him dead, after which his associates also allegedly opened fire, injuring a bystander (Mahender Singh) as well. The Trial Court convicted the appellant and other accused of murder and related offences in 1983, sentencing him to life imprisonment; the Allahabad High Court dismissed his appeal in 2018. By the time the case reached the Supreme Court, five of the six convicted accused had died, leaving Karan Singh as the sole surviving appellant.
The appellant argued that no eyewitness had specifically named him as firing, that the injured witness Mahender Singh did not identify him at the spot, that no weapon or spent cartridges linked to him were recovered, and that all injuries were shown medically to be from pellet/gunshot wounds consistent only with certain weapons. The Supreme Court held that two eyewitnesses (PW2 and PW3) had clearly testified that the appellant was present at the scene armed with a rifle and that all the accused, including him, had opened fire after the first shot by Rajkumar Singh, and that the prosecution needs to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond every conceivable doubt. It found the minor discrepancies pointed out (such as one injured witness not specifically naming the appellant) did not undermine the substantial corroborated eyewitness and medical evidence, relying on a line of precedent holding that minor discrepancies not going to the heart of the matter cannot be used to discredit otherwise credible testimony. Finding no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of guilt by the Trial Court and High Court, and holding that the long delay in the litigation or the deaths of co-accused during the appeal could not itself be grounds for acquittal, the Court dismissed the appeal.
A criminal conviction based on corroborated eyewitness testimony will not be overturned merely because one witness fails to specifically name an accused or because there are minor, non-material inconsistencies in the evidence. Courts look at whether the evidence as a whole carries a "ring of truth," and the standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt, not proof beyond every possible doubt.
