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.
In an earlier 2017 judgment, the Supreme Court had settled a formula for how power generating companies (including Nabha Power Limited) should be compensated by Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) for coal costs and calorific value under their power purchase agreement. Despite that ruling and further orders (including two rounds of contempt proceedings where PSPCL was found guilty of non-compliance and directed to pay), PSPCL kept resisting payment, eventually filing a fresh petition before the electricity Regulatory Commission seeking recovery of amounts already paid and other coal-related claims. The Regulatory Commission held this fresh petition maintainable, relying on a line in the Supreme Court's 2021 contempt order that had left "all future disputes" open, and the generating companies challenged that maintainability ruling before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that its earlier reference to "all future disputes" was meant only for disputes arising after the 09.03.2021 order and going forward. It was never intended to allow PSPCL to reopen or seek a refund of amounts whose calculation had already been conclusively settled and paid under the 2017 judgment and the contempt orders enforcing it. Examining PSPCL's fresh claims about coal-washing losses and calorific value discrepancies, the Court found these were essentially the same arguments already raised and rejected multiple times across six years of litigation, "the same wine in a new bottle." It held that allowing the Regulatory Commission's petition to proceed would improperly reopen a settled matter and reward a party's repeated efforts to delay compliance with a final court order. The Court set aside the Regulatory Commission's order, allowed the appeals, and, to discourage this pattern of repeated relitigation, awarded substantial actual costs to the appellants (Rs. 40 lakh to Nabha Power and Rs. 25 lakh to Talwandi Sabo Power), to be paid within four weeks.
A court's grant of "liberty to raise future disputes" is not a loophole to reopen matters that have already been conclusively decided and complied with. Courts will treat repeated attempts to relitigate a settled issue as an abuse of process and can penalise it with a real costs award, not just a token one.
