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.
Laxmi Prasad, the karta (head) of a Hindu Undivided Family, purchased several properties over the years but registered them in the names of his two minor sons, Vijay Kumar and Rajendra Kumar, allegedly for the family's benefit. Years later, Vijay Kumar sold part of one such property (the "suit property") to a third party despite an injunction, prompting Laxmi Prasad, his wife, and two daughters (including the appellant Pushpalata) to sue for cancellation of the sale, arguing Vijay Kumar was merely a "benami" (nominal) owner holding the property in trust for the HUF, not its true owner. Both the trial court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the suit, holding the plaintiffs had failed to prove the property was purchased for the coparceners' benefit and that the claim was barred under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.
The Supreme Court found that the lower courts had ignored strong evidence supporting the plaintiffs: the sons were undisputedly minors with no independent income when the properties were purchased, the father proved he funded the purchases and remained in possession (supported by independent tenant testimony of paying him rent), and crucially the second son, Rajendra Kumar, had himself admitted in his written statement and evidence that the properties belonged to their father and that his brother was wrongly exploiting his nominal ownership. Applying the settled six-factor test for proving a benami transaction (source of purchase money, possession, motive, relationship of parties, custody of title deeds, and conduct after sale) from precedents like Valliammal v. Subramaniam and Binapani Paul v. Pratima Ghosh, the Court held the exception under Section 4(3)(a) of the Benami Act (property held by a coparcener for the family's benefit) was clearly established, and the concurrent findings of the lower courts were perverse/unsupportable on the evidence. Exercising its limited Article 136 power to interfere with concurrent findings in such an exceptional case, the Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit fully in the plaintiffs' favour.
Property registered in a family member's name (even a minor with no independent income) does not automatically make that person the true legal owner. If the real purchaser can show they funded the purchase, retained possession, and the arrangement was intended for the joint family's benefit, courts can recognize it as a protected "benami-for-family-benefit" holding under Section 4(3)(a) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, even against the nominal owner's later sale to a third party.
