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' father owned land in Ahmedabad that was brought under a Town Planning Scheme in 1963, requiring him to surrender part of it, in exchange for which two final plots were allotted. One of these plots was never actually handed over because it was occupied by slum dwellers, and after two subsequent revisions of the scheme spanning decades, the family was ultimately given a smaller substitute plot in 1996, along with a token compensation of Rs.25 per square metre for the area shortfall. The family sued the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation for over Rs.1.63 crore in damages (calculated by compounding the notional 1963 land value at 10% interest) or, alternatively, additional land, on the ground that the Corporation had failed to fulfil its statutory obligations over the decades of delay. The trial court partly ruled in their favour, but the Gujarat High Court reversed this and dismissed their claim entirely, prompting the present appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs had accepted the reduced final plot and the Rs.25/sq.mt. compensation without protest at the time, and by depositing/accepting that compensation, they had foreclosed their right to later challenge the allotment or seek more. It also noted that the law provided a specific appellate remedy against the Town Planning Officer's compensation determination, which the plaintiffs never invoked. Crucially, the Court found that the plaintiffs led no evidence whatsoever about the actual market value of either the original or substitute plots at any relevant point in time, making it impossible to assess whether Rs.1.63 crore (or any other sum) was justified: a claim for a specific quantified sum cannot succeed without evidence to support it. The Court also held there is no vested right to be allotted equivalent replacement land under a Town Planning Scheme. Finding the High Court fully justified in dismissing the suit, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, with each party bearing its own costs.
A claimant seeking monetary compensation, especially a large or compounded sum, must actually prove the underlying facts (such as market value) with evidence. Courts cannot presume or estimate figures in a vacuum; and if you accept a lesser allotment or compensation without formally objecting or pursuing the available statutory appeal at the time, you generally cannot revive that grievance in a later civil suit.
