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, a construction company executing a project for Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL), placed purchase orders worth an advance of Rs. 50 lakh with a proprietary concern (Hitro Energy Solutions) for light fittings, with CMRL paying the advance directly on the appellant's behalf. When CMRL terminated the underlying project in January 2014, the appellant repaid the Rs. 50 lakh to CMRL and sought a refund from the proprietary concern, which had already encashed the cheque but refused to return the money despite years of correspondence. The respondent company (incorporated shortly after, under a Memorandum of Association listing "taking over" the proprietary concern as one of its objects) resisted the appellant's insolvency application, and while the NCLT had admitted the appellant's Section 9 insolvency petition against the respondent, the NCLAT reversed this, holding that the appellant was merely a "purchaser" and not an "operational creditor" since it had not supplied goods/services to the debtor, and that in any event the claim was time-barred.
The Supreme Court held that the definition of "operational debt" under Section 5(21) of the IBC, a claim "in respect of" the provision of goods or services, must be read broadly and purposively to cover both those who supply goods/services to a corporate debtor and those who receive them, not just suppliers as the NCLAT had narrowly held; since the appellant's advance payment was for a contract to receive light fittings that were never validly retained after the project's cancellation, the resulting refund claim was an operational debt, making the appellant an operational creditor. On the MOA issue, the Court held that the respondent company's own Memorandum of Association explicitly declaring an object "to take over" the proprietary concern was, absent evidence to the contrary, sufficient proof that it had indeed taken over the proprietary concern's liabilities, including this debt. On limitation, applying Article 137 of the Limitation Act (three years from when default occurs, not merely from when the debt becomes due), the Court traced the timeline of negotiations, correspondence, and a final refusal to repay dated 2 March 2017, and held the Section 9 application (filed within three years of that refusal) was not time-barred. The appeal was allowed, the NCLAT's order was set aside, and the earlier admission of the insolvency proceeding was restored.
Under India's insolvency law, a person who advances money to a company for goods or services can qualify as an "operational creditor" even if they were meant to receive rather than supply the goods, so long as the debt arises from that operational contract; and a new company's own incorporation documents (like its Memorandum of Association) can be used against it as proof that it took over the liabilities of a business it absorbed.
