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 respondents was acquired in 1983 for NOIDA's industrial development, with compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer in 1984 at roughly Rs. 20 per square yard. The respondents had not sought enhancement themselves, but a separate reference filed by another landowner (Fateh Mohammed) was referred to a Lok Adalat, which in 2016 recorded a compromise fixing compensation at Rs. 297.50 per square yard (matching a rate the High Court had separately awarded in an unrelated case, Mangu Ram). The respondents then invoked Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, which allows other landowners under the same acquisition notification to claim the same higher compensation once it is fixed by "the Court", relying on the Lok Adalat's 2016 award. The Additional District Magistrate rejected this, but the Allahabad High Court sided with the respondents, holding a Lok Adalat award qualifies as a Court's award/decree for this purpose.
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court, holding that an award passed by a Lok Adalat under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 is fundamentally a recorded compromise between parties, not an adjudication by "the Court" as defined and contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act. While such an award is deemed to be a "decree" for the limited purpose of making it enforceable/executable, that legal fiction cannot be stretched to make it the kind of judicial determination of compensation that Section 28A requires as the trigger for other landowners to claim parity. The Court expressed concern that allowing this would open the door to collusive or "unholy" compromises being used to inflate compensation claims across an entire acquisition. It approved the contrary High Court rulings (Bombay and Karnataka) that had already taken this view, and held that the Lok Adalat's 2016 award in this case could not be the basis for the respondents' Section 28A applications, setting aside the High Court's judgments.
A settlement recorded by a Lok Adalat, while binding and enforceable between the parties who agreed to it, is not the same as a judicial determination of compensation by a court, so other landowners cannot piggyback on a Lok Adalat compromise to claim the same enhanced compensation under the land acquisition law's "same-rate" provision.
