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.
Land belonging to the appellant in Gautam Budh Nagar District was acquired by NOIDA under an urgency clause for a planned industrial layout, and possession was taken without the acquiring authority paying 80% of the estimated compensation upfront, as required by Section 17(3A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This appeal was first heard by a two-judge bench (Justices A.K. Ganguly and Swatanter Kumar), which delivered a split verdict in 2011: one judge holding the acquisition illegal for non-compliance with Section 17(3A) while allowing the beneficiary to retain the land subject to fresh compensation, the other holding the default did not invalidate the acquisition at all. Given the disagreement, the matter was referred to a larger bench, and this three-judge bench heard the case afresh on the merits.
The Supreme Court held that Section 11A of the Act (which causes acquisition to lapse if an award is not passed within two years) applies where the acquiring authority failed to pay 80% of the estimated compensation before taking possession under the urgency provisions, because such possession is not "in accordance with law" and vesting is not absolute; but where the 80% payment was properly made, Section 11A's lapsing consequence does not apply even if the final award is delayed. Although this meant the acquisition would normally lapse for the appellant's land, the Court declined to order reversion because the land had already been integrated into a larger developed industrial layout (a "Mandi" built partly over it), instead, it "moulded the relief," directing that market value be redetermined as of 09.06.2008 (the date the earlier award was actually passed) under the old Act's yardstick, with statutory benefits (like interest) calculated from the original 2002 notification date since the appellant was dispossessed in 2003. The Court also clarified this ruling on the legal principle applies only prospectively, so cases that have already attained finality will not be reopened.
When land is acquired under the urgency provisions of the old Land Acquisition Act, the government must pay at least 80% of estimated compensation before taking possession, failing this can cause the acquisition to lapse for delay in passing a final award, but where the land has since been irreversibly developed, courts will "mould" the remedy into fresh, updated compensation rather than unwind the acquisition altogether.
