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 appellant was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC by the Sessions Court at Guntur, and the Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the conviction, for stabbing a man to death at a village tobacco shop while the victim's son and other eyewitnesses were present nearby. Evidence showed the appellant had sprinkled chilli powder into the victim's eyes before stabbing him in the chest and abdomen, and had a prior grudge arising from an earlier physical altercation and an unpaid medical-treatment demand between the appellant and the victim's son. The appellant challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court, arguing that the murder weapon was never recovered, the FIR's scribe was not examined, there was delay in sending the FIR to court, and the eyewitnesses' presence and testimony were unreliable.
The Supreme Court reiterated the well-settled limits on its power under Article 136 to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and High Court, holding that such interference is warranted only in rare cases involving an error of law, misreading of evidence, or manifest illegality, not as a routine re-appreciation of evidence. It held that non-recovery of the weapon is not fatal to the prosecution's case where there is credible ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence, and that minor or trivial contradictions in witness testimony do not discredit an otherwise trustworthy and reliable eyewitness account. Finding that the daylight attack was witnessed directly, corroborated medically, and supported by a clear motive from prior enmity, the Court held that both lower courts had rightly convicted the appellant and saw no ground to interfere. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
In a criminal appeal reaching the Supreme Court, concurrent findings of guilt by the trial court and High Court will not be reopened for a fresh re-weighing of evidence absent a genuine legal error, and minor inconsistencies in witness testimony or non-recovery of a weapon do not by themselves undermine an otherwise credible prosecution case.
