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.
On 31.08.2024, one Vijay Kumar was travelling from Ghaziabad to Meerut after purchasing a valid railway ticket when he boarded an unknown passenger train. While the train was passing beneath the Vivekananda Flyover, he accidentally fell from the running train, was seriously injured, and died as a result. His father Ravindra Singh and another appellant filed a compensation claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal, which dismissed it on the ground that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger (since no ticket was recovered) nor had he died in an "untoward incident" as defined under the Railways Act, 1989: the Tribunal instead concluded, based on the post-mortem findings and the position of the body between the tracks, that he had been run over.
The High Court held that, per the Supreme Court's rulings in Union of India v. Rina Devi and Lata v. Union of India, non-recovery of a physical ticket is not fatal to a claim: a claimant's affidavit setting out the relevant facts is enough to discharge the initial burden of showing bona fide travel, after which the burden shifts to the Railways to disprove it with cogent evidence. The father's affidavit that the deceased had informed him by phone of purchasing a ticket was found credible, and the minor inconsistency of not mentioning the ticket to the police did not undermine it. On whether the death was an "untoward incident," the Court held that the Tribunal wrongly treated the injury pattern and location of the body between the tracks as conclusively proving a run-over, when, as an earlier Delhi HC decision (Rajpati v. Union of India) recognised: a person can also become entangled and injured this way after falling from a moving train; the beneficial, compensation-focused purpose of the Railways Act calls for a liberal interpretation, and the Railways had not produced any eyewitness or driver/guard statement to rebut the claim. The Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, held the death to be a bona fide passenger's "untoward incident," and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to assess and disburse compensation within two months, listing it for 21.09.2026.
Families of railway accident victims are not required to produce the physical ticket to prove bona fide travel: a credible affidavit setting out the relevant facts can discharge that initial burden, and courts will read railway accident compensation law liberally in favour of victims given its welfare purpose, rather than let ambiguous forensic details (like the body's exact condition or location) defeat a genuine claim.
