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.
After disputes arose under a works contract, the appellant contractor served a notice in August 2009 seeking appointment of an arbitrator and, when the railway authorities did not act, filed a Section 11(6) petition before the High Court of Orissa in October 2009. The appellant then took no further steps to pursue that petition or notify the respondents of it; meanwhile it selected arbitrators from a panel offered by the railway, participated in the resulting arbitral proceedings, but later stopped participating, leading to an ex-parte award against it in June 2013. The High Court was informed of the pending Section 11(6) petition only in 2016, almost three years after the award, and it eventually dismissed the petition in 2019, leaving the appellant free to challenge the award under Sections 34/37.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the settled legal principle (from Datar Switchgears v. Tata Finance and Punj Lloyd v. Petronet MHB) that once a Section 11(6) application is filed before the High Court, the other party forfeits its right to unilaterally appoint an arbitrator, and only the High Court retains jurisdiction to do so. However, on the particular facts, the appellant had itself gone silent on its own petition for years, actively participated in selecting arbitrators and initially engaging with the Arbitral Tribunal, and alerted the High Court to its pending petition only long after an ex-parte award had already been passed. Given this conduct, the Court held the High Court committed no error in declining to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) and dismissing the petition, while leaving the appellant free to challenge the ex-parte award through the statutory remedy. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Merely filing a court petition to preserve a legal right is not enough: a party must diligently pursue it; conduct inconsistent with that petition (such as participating in a parallel arbitral process one later claims is invalid) can defeat relief even where the underlying legal principle would otherwise favour the applicant.
