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 Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority acquired village land for the planned development of Greater Noida. By a 1997 board resolution it divided landowners into "Pushtaini" (those who held the land before the Authority was set up on 28 January 1991, or got it later by partition or family settlement) and "Gair-Pushtaini" (those who bought later). Pushtaini owners were paid Rs. 322 per sq. yard under 2006 consent agreements while the appellants, as Gair-Pushtaini owners, got Rs. 280, and a later 2008 committee recommended an additional ex-gratia payment only to "ancestral" farmers. The appellants challenged this before the Allahabad High Court; a Full Bench in March 2018 upheld the classification as a reasonable step to rehabilitate original residents likely to become landless, and dismissed their petitions.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and struck down the classification. It first held that signing the compensation agreement did not bar the appellants from challenging the unequal treatment, because the ex-gratia distinction arose only after the agreement was signed and no one can be expected to challenge a future violation in advance. On the merits, it found the Authority's assumption that only Pushtaini owners live on or depend on the land was backed by no empirical data, so there was no rational link between the classification and the stated goal of rehabilitation; many non-ancestral owners could equally depend on the land. Applying the Wednesbury reasonableness and proportionality tests, the Court held the measure was neither necessary nor proportionate and came with no safeguards against abuse. It also held the classification contradicted Nagpur Improvement Trust vs. Vithal Rao, which says compensation cannot vary by the type of owner when land is compulsorily acquired for a public purpose, and that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 itself provides no basis for such a distinction. The discriminatory part was severed, and the higher rate and ex-gratia payment were extended to all landowners in the area.
When the government takes your land for a public purpose, it cannot pay you less than your neighbour merely because you bought the land more recently or are not an "original" resident; any difference in treatment must rest on real evidence and be permitted by the parent law. A person who accepted compensation under an agreement does not lose the right to challenge unfair treatment that only came into existence afterwards.
