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 appellants were former Junior Engineers/Overseers (later Assistant Engineers) of the Bihar State Electricity Board who had retired between 2000 and 2008. The Bihar government introduced an Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme for its own employees in 2003, stating it would apply retrospectively from 09.08.1999, but the Scheme explicitly excluded autonomous public undertakings unless they separately adopted it. The Electricity Board adopted the ACP Scheme only in 2005, and by a later notification clarified it would apply prospectively, only to staff appointed after 05.04.2005, not retrospectively to 1999. The appellants sought the retrospective benefit and monetary arrears, but their writ petitions were dismissed by both a Single Judge and a Division Bench of the Patna High Court.
The Supreme Court held that the State's 2003 notification did not automatically confer any right on Electricity Board employees, since the Board is an autonomous statutory body that had already framed its own service regulations under Section 79(C) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, and the notification itself excluded such undertakings unless they chose to adopt it. Since the Board exercised its discretion to adopt the Scheme only prospectively from 05.04.2005 (not retrospectively from 1999 as the State did for its own staff), and most appellants had already retired by then without raising any grievance until 2011, the Court found no case of arbitrariness, mala fide intent, or double-benefit denial. It affirmed that judicial review of an employer's chosen effective date would only be warranted if shown to be mala fide or for an ulterior motive, which was not demonstrated here. The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, upholding the concurrent findings of both High Court benches.
A statutory autonomous body (like an Electricity Board) is not automatically bound by a government scheme meant for state employees; it can choose whether, when, and from what date to adopt such a scheme for its own staff, and courts will not interfere with that choice of date absent proof of bad faith.
