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.
A group of former Air India cabin crew employees, who had worked for Air India when it was a wholly government-owned company, filed writ petitions between 2011 and 2013 in the Bombay High Court raising grievances about pay stagnation, promotion, and wage revision arrears. While these petitions were still pending, the Government of India sold 100% of its shares in Air India to a private company (Talace India Pvt Ltd) in January 2022. By the time the High Court finally heard the case in 2022, Air India was no longer government-owned, and the High Court dismissed the petitions as not maintainable against a now-private company, while giving the employees liberty to pursue other legal remedies.
The Supreme Court framed three questions: whether a privatised former government company could still be subject to writ jurisdiction, whether the employees could be denied relief simply because their employer changed character during the case's pendency, and whether the long delay in deciding the case should count in the employees' favour. The Court held that the test for writ maintainability applies at the time the court actually exercises its jurisdiction (i.e., when the writ would be issued), not merely when the petition was filed, surveying High Court precedents from Gujarat, Delhi, and Bombay that took this same view, and distinguishing a lone contrary Calcutta High Court ruling. Since Air India had ceased to be a "State" or its instrumentality under Article 12 once fully privatised and was performing no public function, it could not be commanded by a writ. The Court found the Bombay High Court had correctly balanced this by dismissing the writs while preserving the employees' right to sue in an ordinary civil forum, with Section 14 of the Limitation Act protecting them from a limitation bar caused by time spent in the wrong forum. The appeals were dismissed.
A writ petition against a government company under Article 226/Article 12 must remain maintainable at the actual time the court decides the case, not just at filing. If the employer is privatised in the interim and stops performing public functions, employees must pursue their claims through ordinary civil remedies instead, though time already spent in the writ court will generally be excluded from limitation calculations.
