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.
On 16 May 1990, police in Kathua, Jammu and Kashmir, found two young men, Manjit Kumar and Jaswinder, lying unconscious and badly beaten inside the house of Lal Chand and his sons; both later died. Jaswinder's hospital statement (treated as a dying declaration) said he and Manjit had gone to the village for fodder and were dragged into the house and beaten with iron rods, a sickle and sticks. The prosecution's wider story was that a Rs. 50 loan dispute had led the accused first to beat and tie up Jaswinder's brother Praveen, after which the two deceased came to the house and were attacked. Lal Chand and his sons were convicted of murder and sentenced to life in 1991; the High Court dismissed their appeal in 2009. Three of the sons (Mohinder Pal, Madan Lal and Basant Kumar) appealed to the Supreme Court, saying the deceased had trespassed into their home and attacked their father, and they acted in self-defence.
The Court found that the deaths were clearly homicidal, but the prosecution's account of why the deceased were at the accused's house was riddled with contradictions: the dying declaration said they came for fodder and knew of no enmity, Praveen said he had come looking for labourers and was tied up over the loan, and another witness gave a third version in which he himself led the deceased to the house. Crucially, the father Lal Chand had also suffered a head injury with a fracture in the same incident, and the investigating officer admitted he never investigated how. The prosecution had "not come with clean hands" and suppressed the genesis of the fight. Given that the attack happened inside the family's own home and the possibility that the sons, enraged by an assault on their father, lost self-control under grave and sudden provocation could not be ruled out, the Court gave the appellants the benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300 RPC. The conviction was converted from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part I), and since the appellants had already served about ten years, that was held to be sufficient sentence; their bail bonds were discharged.
When the accused are also injured in an incident, the prosecution must explain those injuries, failing to do so raises a real doubt about who started the violence and can reduce a murder conviction to the lesser offence of culpable homicide. Courts look at the whole story, not just the outcome, when deciding whether a killing was murder or a loss of self-control under provocation.
