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 company had imported specialised machinery (hydraulic piling rigs) duty-free under an exemption meant for road/bridge construction projects for government authorities. When investigations found the company had violated the conditions of that exemption, it voluntarily deposited a large sum toward duty and interest even before a formal show-cause notice was issued. The government then issued a notice proposing confiscation of the goods (under Section 111) along with duty, interest, and penalty. The company approached the Settlement Commission, which upheld the duty liability but waived the penalty and fine, while the company disputed that interest on delayed duty payment could be charged since the proceedings had originated under the confiscation provisions rather than the standard duty-assessment provision (Section 28).
The Supreme Court, resolving a perceived conflict in its own earlier precedent (Commr. of Customs (Import) v. Jagdish Cancer and Research Centre), held that an importer whose goods are confiscated but who then chooses to pay a fine to redeem them under Section 125 of the Customs Act still remains liable to pay customs duty on those goods. It clarified that while the liability to pay duty in such cases arises under Section 125(2), the actual assessment, calculation, and determination of how much duty is owed must still be carried out under the ordinary duty-assessment machinery of Section 28: the two provisions work together rather than being mutually exclusive as some had read the earlier Jagdish Cancer ruling to suggest. Because Section 28 applies for the assessment, the Court held that interest on delayed payment of that duty, under Section 28AB, is also payable. The appeal was accordingly dismissed and the High Court's order upholding the duty liability was affirmed.
Choosing to pay a fine to get confiscated imported goods released does not let an importer escape customs duty on those goods: the duty (and interest for delay in paying it) still has to be worked out and paid under the standard customs duty-assessment rules, even though the confiscation and redemption happened under a different, specific provision of the Customs Act.
