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 2000, the respondent company took a loan from the appellant Corporation (NEDFI) to set up a cold storage unit in Nagaland, secured by a loan agreement, a village council's guarantee arrangement, and related security documents. After the company defaulted, the Corporation issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act in 2011, and years later also filed a recovery application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Guwahati. In 2019, armed with a district magistrate-level order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the Corporation physically took over the company's assets, including the cold storage unit and directors' properties. The company challenged this takeover before the Gauhati High Court, which allowed its writ petition and set aside the possession action, holding that the Corporation had not properly established a valid mortgage/security interest enabling it to invoke the SARFAESI Act in this manner, prompting the Corporation's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined in detail whether the Corporation had validly invoked the SARFAESI Act, including the specific question of whether and when the Act's provisions extended to the State of Nagaland, and whether a mortgage-based security interest existed such that the Act's machinery for taking possession could be triggered. It agreed with the High Court's Division Bench that the Corporation had failed to establish the security interest required to invoke the SARFAESI Act, and held that its invocation of the Act to seize the company's assets was without jurisdiction. The Court rejected the Corporation's reliance on precedents emphasizing that borrowers should first exhaust DRT/SARFAESI statutory remedies rather than approach High Courts under Article 226, holding those precedents inapplicable where no valid security interest existed in the first place. It dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's judgment, but left the Corporation free to pursue lawful remedies against the company or the guarantor village council separately, clarifying that since the council was not a party before it, nothing in the judgment should be read as foreclosing any plea the council might raise if proceeded against later.
A lender cannot use the fast-track asset-seizure powers of the SARFAESI Act unless it can actually establish a valid, properly created security interest (such as a mortgage), without that foundation, a borrower is entitled to challenge the seizure directly in a High Court through a writ petition, rather than being confined to the SARFAESI Act's own tribunal process.
