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.
Ram Kishan (later represented by his legal heirs after his death) was the defendant in a civil suit filed by Manish Kumar concerning a property at Naraina Village, Delhi Cantonment, which had been sealed by the Delhi Cantonment Board (DCB). Ram Kishan tried to get the suit dismissed, arguing that an earlier Supreme Court order (in Praveen Kumar v. Delhi Cantonment Board, 2020) had already settled matters in his favour by directing the DCB to consider his building-plan sanction request, but both the Trial Court and the Delhi High Court rejected this, and separately allowed the plaintiff's request to delete two framed issues (about DCB's jurisdiction and a bar under Section 250 of the Cantonments Act, 2006) from the suit. Ram Kishan's heirs appealed both orders to the Supreme Court, and separately filed a writ petition asking the DCB be directed to de-seal the property.
The Supreme Court examined the actual text of its 2020 order relied upon and found the appellant had fundamentally mischaracterized it: that order had not granted any "indefeasible right," did not even involve the current plaintiff as a party, and had merely directed the DCB to consider (not necessarily approve) a building-plan sanction application after the appellant himself had abandoned his challenge to DCB's jurisdiction and accepted it. Since the appellant's own building plan was never actually sanctioned, and no notice or order had been issued against the plaintiff to trigger the suit-bar under Section 250 of the Cantonments Act, the Court found no infirmity in the deletion of the two issues or in refusing to dismiss the suit, and dismissed both civil appeals. On the connected writ petition, since the earlier 2020 order only entitled de-sealing upon actual approval of the building plan (which never happened), the Court held there was no legal right to claim de-sealing at this stage and dismissed the writ petition as well.
A litigant cannot rely on a prior court order to short-circuit ongoing litigation by mischaracterizing what that order actually decided. Courts will scrutinize the precise text and conditions of an earlier order, and relief (like directing a building plan's sanction, or de-sealing property) that was only ever made conditional cannot later be claimed as an unconditional right.
