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.
This is a common judgment disposing of three connected civil appeals raising the same legal question: whether Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (which provides a statutory arbitration remedy for telephone billing disputes) ousts the jurisdiction of consumer fora under the Consumer Protection Act to hear complaints against telecom companies. The lead case involved a mobile subscriber who was billed an unusually high amount and complained of deficiency of service; the telecom company argued the consumer forum had no jurisdiction, relying on an earlier Supreme Court ruling (General Manager, Telecom v. M. Krishnan) that had held Section 7B ousted such jurisdiction. The present case (Civil Appeal No. 1389 of 2022, arising from SLP(C) No. 9071/2016) was one of the appeals tagged along with the lead matter, similarly concerning consumer complaints against telecom service providers whose maintainability before consumer fora was in question.
The Supreme Court held that the earlier decision in M. Krishnan was incorrect and overruled its reasoning. It found that the Consumer Protection Act (1986, now replaced by the 2019 Act) is itself a special law enacted specifically to protect consumers, and that under the settled principle that a later law (even if general) prevails over an earlier special law when the two conflict, the Consumer Protection Act's remedies survive alongside the statutory arbitration remedy under the Telegraph Act. The Act expressly states its remedies are "in addition to" other statutory remedies, so a consumer can choose to approach the consumer forum instead of the arbitration route; there is no compulsion to arbitrate. Applying this ruling, the Court dismissed the telecom company's appeal in the lead case, and in the connected appeals (including this one), allowed them by setting aside the NCDRC's earlier orders and restoring the underlying consumer complaints to their respective Consumer Disputes Redressal Fora for hearing on merits.
Consumers with telecom billing or service disputes are not confined to the arbitration remedy under the Telegraph Act. They can approach consumer courts, because consumer protection remedies are additional to, not a substitute for, other statutory remedies. When two laws conflict, the more recent law protecting consumers will generally prevail over an older specialized statute.
