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.
In August 2009, a group of about twelve men on motorcycles confronted Durgesh Mahant and his friends near a hotel in Kanker, Chhattisgarh, over an earlier altercation. Dinesh Rawani stabbed Durgesh with a "gupti" (a sword-like weapon), and Durgesh died from his injuries; another man, Natwar Soni, was also seriously injured while trying to intervene. The trial court convicted all twelve accused of murder using Section 149 IPC (unlawful assembly with common object), and the Chhattisgarh High Court acquitted three of them but affirmed the conviction of nine others; eight of those nine, including Manoj Sevani, Manoj Yadav, and Manohar Balmiki, appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court carefully reviewed which specific acts each accused was actually shown, by name, to have committed in the eyewitness testimony, since Section 149 IPC (unlawful assembly) requires proof that each member shared the "common object" of the assembly, not just presence in a group. It found that the FIR named only four accused (Dinesh Rawani, Brijesh Sonkar, Mani Yadav, and Parmesh Thakur) and that the witnesses gave clear, consistent, and specific accounts of fatal blows delivered by exactly these four (a fatal gupti blow to the chest by Rawani, and patta/stick blows to the head by the other three). The remaining accused, including the appellants, were not named in the FIR, and no witness gave sufficiently clear or corroborated testimony attributing any specific violent act to them (one, Javed, was said only to have "held" a witness, which was insufficiently supported). The Court accordingly acquitted Manoj Sevani, Manoj Yadav, Sayyed Javed, and Manohar Balmiki of all charges, while upholding the conviction of the four clearly-implicated accused, converting their conviction from murder via "unlawful assembly" (Section 302/149) to the more individually-focused Section 302/34 (common intention) since only four persons, not the whole group, were shown to share a common design.
Merely being part of a group present during a violent incident is not enough to convict someone of murder: Indian law requires the prosecution to show, through specific and credible evidence, that each individual accused actually shared the common object or intention behind the fatal act, and vague or unnamed involvement in a crowd is not sufficient.
