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.
Reddy Veerana purchased land in village Chhalera Bangar, Gautam Buddh Nagar in 1997, part of which the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) later handed over to a private developer (DLF) in 2003-04 through a public auction without any formal land acquisition, despite a permanent injunction decree that had already become final in the landowner's favour. NOIDA only initiated formal acquisition proceedings afterward (2005), took possession in 2005-06, and passed a compensation award five years late, in 2011, at a low rate, while earlier High Court rulings (upheld by the Supreme Court) had already directed that compensation be fixed based on the applicable circle rate. The Allahabad High Court later fixed compensation at Rs. 1,10,000 per square metre (the notified circle rate) but allowed NOIDA a 50% deduction for "development charges," prompting cross-appeals to the Supreme Court by both the landowner (seeking a higher net amount) and NOIDA (resisting the compensation altogether).
The Supreme Court held that the question of the landowner's title and the correct circle rate (Rs. 1,10,000 per sq. m., since the land was commercial/industrial and already fully developed with a mall built on it) had already attained finality in earlier rounds of litigation and could not be reopened. However, it found the High Court's blanket 50% deduction for development charges unjustified, since deduction percentages must be based on case-specific factors like the extent of existing development, not applied as a routine maximum, and here the land was already developed with no need for further work. The Court therefore set aside the 50% deduction entirely (no deduction to be applied), upheld 30% solatium and standard statutory interest (9% for the first year, 15% thereafter under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894), and additionally awarded 3% penal interest given NOIDA's prolonged and improper conduct, handing over the land to a developer years before formal acquisition, in violation of a standing injunction and Article 300-A's protection against being deprived of property without due legal process, describing this as a "constitutional tort." NOIDA's appeal was dismissed, and the landowner's appeal was allowed in part with the enhanced compensation to be paid within six weeks.
A government authority cannot hand over private land to a developer ahead of, or without, proper acquisition proceedings; doing so can amount to a violation of the constitutional right to property under Article 300-A, and courts can order compensation with penal interest on top of standard statutory interest to remedy prolonged, unjust delay by the state.
