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.
The appellants owned land in Pune reserved for a park under the city's 1987 Development Plan. Under Section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, they surrendered the land to the Pune Municipal Corporation in exchange for a Transferable Development Right (TDR), a certificate letting them build elsewhere, initially fixed at 100% Floor Space Index (FSI) based on the State's own Advocate General's legal opinion, and they paid the Corporation money for site work and handed over possession in 2004. A year later, the State reversed course, slashing the TDR to just 4% FSI on the ground that the land was in a "Hill Top/Hill Slope" zone, and the Bombay High Court upheld this cancellation.
The Supreme Court found the State's reversal unjustified. It had accepted and acted on its own Advocate General's opinion (that the surrounding residential zoning should determine the TDR rate), and never went back to get a fresh legal opinion or otherwise properly justify overturning it, even though the appellants had already surrendered their land and paid money in reliance on the earlier decision. Noting the matter had dragged on for 18 years with the State and the Municipal Corporation repeatedly blaming each other and even changing their story about what use the land was put to, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment. Rather than simply restoring the original 100% FSI TDR (which the respondents said would strain city infrastructure given intervening construction), the Court ordered the Corporation to return the land to the appellants within four weeks for residential use, and directed the State/Corporation to pay compensation of Rs. 1 crore per year (from 2004) for the loss caused by the prolonged deprivation, to be completed within three months.
A citizen who parts with property in reliance on a government body's own considered legal opinion and formal decision is entitled to have that reliance honoured; authorities cannot arbitrarily reverse a settled benefit years later without a proper, reasoned basis, and courts can fashion practical remedies (return of property plus compensation) when the original relief is no longer feasible.
