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 1991, NOIDA acquired about 492 acres of land in Village Chhalera Bangar for planned industrial development, and the Land Acquisition Officer initially fixed compensation at Rs. 110 per sq. yard. Over more than two decades of litigation, different landowners obtained different enhancements from the Reference Court and the Allahabad High Court (ranging from about Rs. 222 to Rs. 340 per sq. yard), and in a separate case called Bir Singh, the Supreme Court itself had further enhanced compensation to Rs. 449 per sq. yard for similarly situated land. This created inconsistent compensation rates among landowners whose land was acquired under the same notification, leading to a large batch of cross-appeals by NOIDA and various landowners, along with numerous miscellaneous applications, all seeking parity or further enhancement.
The Supreme Court reviewed the tangled history of the litigation and the reasoning behind the varying compensation figures, and while declining to disturb the Bir Singh precedent itself (calling it based on its own peculiar facts), it independently revised the compensation rate for all the landowners before it to a uniform Rs. 403 per sq. yard, enhancing it where lower amounts had been awarded, and correspondingly reducing it where the High Court had granted the higher Rs. 449 rate. It rejected the landowners' claim for automatic parity under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, both because procedural requirements for invoking that provision were not met and because the issue was rendered moot by the Court's own uniform revision. It directed that the enhanced compensation be deposited with the Reference Court within eight weeks for onward disbursement.
When land acquired under a single notification produces widely inconsistent compensation awards over the years due to piecemeal litigation, courts can step in to fix one uniform, fair rate for everyone similarly placed, rather than perpetuating unequal outcomes, but claimants must still follow the specific statutory procedure (like timely written requests) to claim parity as a matter of right.
