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.
Note: the downloaded PDF is a combined document containing two separate judgments authored the same day by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma: the first (pages 1-8) is Dr. Vijay Dixit v. Pagadal Krishna Mohan (C.A. No. 1970/2020), an unrelated medical-negligence consumer matter, and the second (pages 9-17, beginning "C.A. Nos. 10941-10942 of 2013") is the actual case for this serial number, New India Assurance v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage. This summary covers only the latter, matching judgment. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage had filed a consumer complaint against New India Assurance for repudiating an insurance claim over "sprouting of potatoes" losses at its cold-storage facility. The insurer filed its written statement 79 days after the 30-day limit prescribed under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) forfeited its right to contest the claim on merits.
The core legal question, whether the strict 45-day (30+15) limit for filing a written statement under Section 13 is mandatory, had earlier been settled by a 3-judge bench in "New India Assurance 1" (2015) holding it mandatory, and later clarified by a Constitution Bench in "New India Assurance 2" (2020) that this mandatory rule would apply only prospectively (from 4 March 2020). Since the NCDRC's order forfeiting the insurer's right to file its written statement here was passed in 2013, well before the 2020 cut-off, the Court held that the underlying delay-condonation application must be decided on merits rather than being summarily rejected. It set aside the NCDRC's order and directed it to decide the condonation application on merits, and directed that the disputed claim amount (already deposited with the Registry) be transferred to the NCDRC in a fixed deposit pending final outcome.
Rules on time-limits announced by courts for consumer disputes are not automatically retrospective. If a complaint or forfeiture order predates a later Supreme Court ruling that tightens a procedural deadline, the older, more lenient position can still apply, so parties should not assume a later judgment can be used to reopen or worsen an already-pending case.
