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 dispute arose over 6.5 cents of land in Kerala that had originally belonged to one Rajeswari (defendant no. 3) under a 1978 partition deed. Rajeswari sold this share in 1978 to a third party, who later, along with co-owners, sold the entire 13-cent property to the original plaintiff (Rudrayani Devaki's predecessor) by a registered 1980 sale deed. Years later in 1996, Rajeswari executed a second sale deed for the same land in favour of R. Veronica and another (the appellants), who took possession and built on it, prompting the plaintiff to sue for declaration of title, recovery of possession, and cancellation of the 1996 sale deed as void. The trial court decreed in the plaintiff's favour, the First Appellate Court reversed and dismissed the suit, and the High Court's Second Appeal restored the trial court's decree, which the appellants then challenged before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined how the courts below had approached the requirement of proving execution of the disputed 1996 sale deed and the interplay between Section 68 of the Evidence Act (which requires proof by an attesting witness for documents "required by law to be attested") and its proviso on specific denial of execution. The Court clarified that a proviso cannot be read independently of its main provision and cannot expand into an independent rule of general application: the proviso to Section 68 applies only to documents that the law mandatorily requires to be attested, and a plain sale deed is not such a document, so the proviso did not apply here. Finding that the High Court's Second Appeal judgment had not properly addressed the substantial questions of law or given all parties a fair opportunity to present their case, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and sent the matter back for a fresh (de novo) hearing, directing that it be disposed of within three months after formulating the substantial questions of law.
A legal proviso only carves out a narrow exception to its main clause and cannot be stretched into a rule of general application; and litigants should know that appellate courts can send a case back for a completely fresh hearing if the legal questions were not properly framed and argued the first time around.
