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.
D.A. Srinivas (the respondent/plaintiff) sued the wife and children of the late K. Raghunath, claiming ownership of certain properties on the strength of a Will allegedly executed by Raghunath in his favour. The appellants (Raghunath's widow and children) sought to have the plaint thrown out at the threshold, arguing it disclosed no valid cause of action and was barred by the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, since the plaintiff's own case was that he had funded the purchase of the properties in Raghunath's name. The trial court rejected the plaint on this basis, but the Karnataka High Court reversed that order and restored the suit for trial. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that a plaint can indeed be rejected at the threshold where a meaningful reading of its own averments shows the claim is founded on a prohibited benami arrangement, even if it is dressed up as a claim under a Will. It found that the plaintiff's own pleadings admitted he financed the purchase while title was taken in Raghunath's name: squarely a benami transaction not protected by any statutory exception, and that the 2016 amendment to the Benami Act operates retrospectively. The Court also held that a person implicated in the murder of the person from whom inheritance is claimed cannot assert inheritance rights, applying Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act and principles of justice and equity. Consequently, it set aside the High Court's judgment, declared the transaction benami, and directed the Central Government to appoint an Administrator to take over the properties (confiscation) within eight weeks.
Courts will look past the form of a lawsuit to its real substance, dressing up a claim as one under a Will does not shield it from the legal bar on benami transactions; funding a property purchase in someone else's name and later trying to claim ownership through litigation can result in the property being confiscated by the government.
