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 companies with a sub-contracting relationship on government road projects fell into a payment dispute, leading Dee Vee Projects to sue Prakash Corporates for recovery of an alleged excess payment before the Commercial Court at Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Under the Commercial Courts Act's amendment to the Civil Procedure Code, a defendant must file its written statement within 120 days of being served summons, after which the right is forfeited. Prakash Corporates was served on 06.01.2021, but repeated adjournments (including COVID-related court closures during the second wave) meant its written statement was still not on record when the 120-day deadline passed on 06.05.2021; the Commercial Court refused to accept it, and the Chhattisgarh High Court upheld that refusal, holding that the Supreme Court's COVID limitation-extension orders applied only to "limitation" and not to this kind of prescribed procedural time limit.
The Supreme Court held that its own suo motu orders in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, issued under Article 142 to protect litigants from pandemic-related hardship, excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021 for computing limitation across all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, and that this extraordinary relief must be read broadly to cover the time for filing a written statement as well, not narrowly confined to limitation for filing suits or appeals. It also found the Trial Court had compounded the error by refusing to accept the written statement while simultaneously failing to decide a pending application under Section 10 CPC (for stay pending parallel insolvency proceedings) with due expedition, reiterating that procedural rules exist to serve justice, not to punish parties. The Court set aside both the Commercial Court's and the High Court's orders, directed that the appellant's already-prepared written statement be taken on record, and ordered the suit to proceed with the pending applications decided promptly.
The Supreme Court's COVID-19 limitation-extension orders under Article 142 were meant to be given full, generous effect during the pandemic and extend to procedural deadlines like the 120-day period for filing a written statement in commercial suits, not just to limitation for initiating fresh proceedings. Courts should not read such extraordinary relief narrowly to defeat its protective purpose.
