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.
Kotak Mahindra Bank had lent money to a company called Mission Vivacare, secured by a mortgage over two plots in the SEZ area of Dhar, Madhya Pradesh. When the borrower defaulted, the bank invoked the SARFAESI Act and, in September 2014, the District Magistrate ordered the SDM to take possession of the plots for the bank. Meanwhile, Girnar Corrugators, a small enterprise, had obtained an award against the same borrower from the MSME Facilitation Council under the MSMED Act, with recovery certificates issued to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue. The Naib Tehsildar refused to hand possession to the bank, reasoning that the MSMED Act, being a later special law with an overriding clause (Section 24), would prevail over SARFAESI. A Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court sided with the bank, but a Division Bench reversed, holding that the MSMED Act prevails.
The Supreme Court allowed the bank's appeal and restored the Single Judge's order. It held that Sections 15 to 23 of the MSMED Act merely set up a special mechanism for adjudicating delayed-payment disputes between suppliers and buyers and contain no provision giving MSME dues "priority" over secured creditors or government taxes. By contrast, Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, inserted in 2016 and itself carrying a non-obstante (overriding) clause, expressly gives a registered secured creditor's debts priority over all other debts and government dues. Applying the very principle the MSME relied on (that where two laws have competing overriding clauses, the later one prevails) Section 26E (2016) is later than the MSMED Act (2006), so the bank's SARFAESI recovery wins; there is in fact no conflict on the subject of priority because the MSMED Act says nothing about it. The Court also held that the Naib Tehsildar's refusal was wholly without jurisdiction: under Section 14 of SARFAESI, the District Magistrate and subordinate officers only assist the secured creditor in taking possession and cannot adjudicate disputes; anyone aggrieved must go to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17. The MSME can still execute its award like any other creditor, and may approach the DRT if aggrieved.
A bank's registered security interest under the SARFAESI Act takes priority over an MSME Facilitation Council award: an MSME's award is enforceable, but it does not jump the queue ahead of a secured lender. Revenue officials executing a Section 14 SARFAESI possession order have no power to refuse or second-guess it; objections belong before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
