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.
Birinchi Bihari Shah owned a property in Kolkata on which he regularly paid municipal taxes, with the Corporation itself confirming no dues were outstanding. In 1991 the Kolkata Municipal Corporation purported to compulsorily acquire the property by invoking Section 352 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (a provision meant only for identifying land needed for streets/parks), later changed its official records to show itself as owner, and never paid any compensation, even while continuing to collect property tax from the original owner for over a decade. Shah's legal heir went through multiple rounds of litigation, and both a Single Judge and a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that Section 352 contains no actual power of compulsory acquisition, ruling in favour of the property owner.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court, holding that Section 352 merely lets the Municipal Commissioner identify land needed for a public street or park, while the actual power to compulsorily acquire land lies only with the State Government under Section 537, following a formal application process. It rejected the Corporation's argument that Section 363 (compensation) validated the Section 352 acquisition, agreeing that Section 363 applies only to acquisitions by agreement, not compulsory ones. Going further, the Court held that even a valid acquisition power combined with a compensation clause is not enough: the constitutional right to property under Article 300A requires a fair procedure, which it broke down into seven essential sub-rights: the right to notice, the right to be heard, the right to a reasoned decision, the duty to acquire only for public purpose, the right to fair compensation, the right to an efficient and timely process, and the right to conclusion (actual vesting after payment). Since Section 352 provided none of these safeguards and the Corporation had acted in blatant violation of statutory procedure, taking the land without ever paying compensation while continuing to collect tax from the original owner, the acquisition was illegal, and the appeal was dismissed with Rs. 5,00,000 in costs payable to the respondent.
The government cannot take away a citizen's property merely by having some statutory power and a promise of compensation: a valid "authority of law" under Article 300A requires proper notice, a genuine hearing, a reasoned decision, a real public purpose, fair and timely compensation, and formal conclusion of the process; skipping these safeguards makes any acquisition of private property illegal, however powerful the government body involved.
