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.
The complainant had given the accused a hand loan of Rs. 4,50,000 in December 2010 to buy a house site, to be repaid within a year with 16% interest. The accused issued a cheque for the amount in 2013, which bounced for insufficient funds, and after a demand notice went unanswered, the complainant filed a Section 138 NI Act complaint. Both the trial court and the sessions court (in appeal) convicted the accused, but the Karnataka High Court, exercising its revisional jurisdiction, went into the merits of the evidence afresh and acquitted him, chiefly reasoning that the complainant had not adequately shown his financial capacity to advance such a large, interest-free-sounding loan.
The Supreme Court restored the conviction, holding first on the merits that the complainant had in fact discharged his burden: two witnesses corroborated that they had lent him money which he then advanced to the accused, the accused's signature on the cheque was admitted (triggering the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act that it was issued to discharge a liability), and the accused had failed to raise or prove any defence of financial incapacity, either in his reply to the demand notice or through evidence at trial. More fundamentally, the Court held that the High Court had exceeded the scope of its revisional jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence and substituting its own view for the concurrent factual findings of two courts below, contrary to settled law that revisional courts may interfere only where there is perversity, gross error, or a glaring miscarriage of justice: none of which the High Court had identified. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the trial court and sessions court judgments.
A High Court's revisional jurisdiction over a criminal conviction is narrow and supervisory, not a second appeal. It cannot re-weigh evidence and overturn concurrent findings of guilt unless there is a clear, glaring error or perversity on the record; and in cheque-bounce cases, once the signature on the cheque is admitted, the burden shifts to the accused to actively disprove the presumed underlying debt, not merely raise doubts about it.
