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.
Two educational trusts had borrowed over Rs.125 crore combined from a cooperative bank, secured by mortgages and personal guarantees; when they defaulted, their loan accounts were classified as non-performing assets and later assigned to Phoenix ARC, an Asset Reconstruction Company, which pursued recovery under the SARFAESI Act. Despite a Letter of Acceptance in which the borrowers admitted the debt, they continued to default, prompting Phoenix ARC to send a letter warning it would take possession of the mortgaged properties. The borrowers challenged this letter in a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court (rather than using the statutory appeal remedy under the SARFAESI Act), and the High Court granted an ex-parte interim stay on possession: conditioned only on a token deposit of Rs.1 crore against dues of about Rs.117 crore, which it then repeatedly extended over several years without deciding Phoenix ARC's application to vacate the stay.
The Supreme Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable against a private Asset Reconstruction Company's proposed action under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, because such a company is not performing a "public function" of the kind normally expected of State authorities, it is acting as a private secured creditor in a commercial transaction, and because the SARFAESI Act itself provides an efficacious statutory remedy (an appeal under Section 17) that borrowers must use instead. The Court found the High Court's continued, unreasoned ex-parte stay, protecting borrowers on a mere Rs.1-3 crore deposit against dues of Rs.117 crore, to be an abuse of the writ process that seriously prejudiced the secured creditor's rights. It therefore allowed the appeals, dismissed the writ petitions, vacated the interim orders, and awarded costs of Rs.1 lakh in each case against the borrowers.
Borrowers aggrieved by actions of banks or Asset Reconstruction Companies under the SARFAESI Act must pursue the statutory appeal remedy under Section 17 rather than filing a writ petition, since such private financial institutions are not treated as performing "public functions" amenable to writ jurisdiction, and courts should be cautious about granting or indefinitely extending stays that leave large debts effectively unrecoverable.
