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.
Four persons (a father and three sons, the "Rastogi siblings," plus a co-accused) were tried for a 1991 murder; the Sessions Court convicted the siblings and sentenced them to life imprisonment. On their composite appeal, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court split: one judge upheld the conviction of two siblings (Anil and Ajay) but acquitted the third (Atul), while the other judge upheld the conviction of all three. Under Section 392 CrPC, the matter went to a third ("referee") judge, who not only acquitted Atul (on which there was already disagreement) but also went on to reverse the concurring findings against Anil and Ajay, acquitting all three, even though both original judges had actually agreed on their guilt. The complainant and the State of Uttar Pradesh separately appealed this to the Supreme Court, both filed as Crl.A. No.-002372 arising from this reference along with a connected case bearing the same lead judgment.
The core legal question was whether a third judge under Section 392 CrPC, when a Division Bench is divided in opinion only as to one of several co-accused (here, Atul), can also reopen and reverse findings on the other co-accused (Anil and Ajay) where the original two judges had actually agreed. Through a close textual analysis of "an appeal" versus "the appeal" in Section 392, and tracing the provision's history back to Section 429 of the 1898 Code, the Court found strong grounds to doubt the correctness of its own earlier precedent (Sajjan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh) which had permitted such a broader reconsideration by the third judge. However, rather than finally deciding the point itself, the Bench recorded its respectful disagreement with Sajjan Singh and referred the question of whether that precedent lays down correct law to a larger Bench to be constituted by the Chief Justice. The Court expressly reserved its own answer on the merits, meaning these appeals remain pending final disposal until the larger Bench rules on the reference.
This is not yet a final verdict on the underlying murder case. It is a procedural reference flagging that when appellate judges split on the fate of only one co-accused among several, a third ("referee") judge's power to also revisit and overturn the judges' unanimous findings on the others is legally contested and now awaits authoritative clarification from a larger Bench of the Supreme Court.
