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.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1056
In railway accident compensation claims, a victim's family does not have to produce the physical train ticket to prove bona fide travel. A sworn statement explaining its loss is enough to shift the burden onto the Railways, and any delay by the Railways in conducting its own mandatory investigation cannot be used against the claimants.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1055
In a bareboat charter with a clause designating the charterer a mere "gratuitous bailee" after termination, a validly served termination notice ends the charterer's status immediately. Physical handover of the vessel is just the mechanical follow-through, not a condition for the termination to take legal effect; this matters directly for maritime creditors deciding whom, and which vessel, to target for arrest.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1054
A court cannot pick and choose parts of a witness's testimony to convict on one charge while rejecting the same testimony to acquit on a closely related charge arising from the same facts. If the witness's account is unreliable for one charge, that unreliability cannot simply be set aside for a more serious, connected charge.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1050
Even in the gravest crimes, a death sentence cannot be sustained unless the prosecution affirmatively rules out the possibility of the offender's reform and shows that no lesser punishment (including life imprisonment without remission) would meet the ends of justice, and courts must give the accused a genuine, separate hearing on sentence with full background material, not decide punishment on the same day as conviction.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1057
When commercial parties in an arbitration-bound contract are willing to agree on a sole arbitrator, courts will readily facilitate that agreement and let the arbitral tribunal itself take over interim relief, rather than continuing to litigate stay applications through multiple court levels.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1047
In government/paramilitary service disputes over wrongful dismissal, what matters under Article 311 is the officer who actually issued the final, unconditional appointment order (not a preliminary conditional call-letter or offer), and courts will read the specific service rules to see which ranks are legally empowered to both appoint and discipline an employee. A call for training is not the same as an appointment.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1048
A trial court cannot order that a convict "remain in prison for the rest of their natural life" without any possibility of remission, only the Supreme Court or a High Court can impose such a sentence, and even then only in appropriately grave cases, after weighing both the brutality of the crime and factors like time already served and conduct in custody.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1049
A criminal complaint under a special protective law like POCSO is not automatically true merely because it was registered; courts must carefully scrutinise such allegations, especially when they surface during an acrimonious custody battle, since false accusations of this kind cause lasting damage both to the falsely accused parent and to the child caught in the middle.
Civil Appeal (Interim Order) · 2026 INSC 1043
There is no final ruling yet. The present custody arrangement is temporary, and the case is still pending.
Legal 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.
Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 25577-25579 of 2025
A dispute arose over management of the People's Education Trust, with a suit filed under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code (which requires prior "leave of the Court" before such a suit against a public trust can even be instituted). While the leave application was still pending, the trial court had appointed an ad hoc committee/receiver under Order XL Rule 1 to manage the trust's day-to-day affairs. The Karnataka High Court set this aside, holding that until leave under Section 92 is actually granted, the suit remains "stillborn" and the court has no jurisdiction to pass any interim orders at all, a view that conflicted with several other High Courts (Allahabad, Bombay, Kerala, Madras) which had recognised such protective jurisdiction pending leave. The appellants challenged this before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that Section 92 is a special, self-contained provision designed to be both a "protective shield" (guarding public trusts from vexatious litigation) and a "remedial sword" (allowing genuine breaches to be addressed), and that obtaining leave is a mandatory threshold, not a mere formality. Until leave is granted, there is no properly instituted suit and hence no "lis" before the court. Since the appointment of a receiver under Order XL Rule 1 presupposes an existing suit ("before or after decree"), and the "supplemental proceedings" power under Section 94 similarly presupposes an underlying proceeding, neither could be invoked while leave was still pending; the Court also held the general inherent power under Section 151 CPC cannot override the specific safeguard built into Section 92 (general provisions yield to special ones). The Court also rejected reliance on Section 141 CPC, holding it applies only to procedural matters, not substantive safeguards like Section 92. However, it clarified that in genuinely urgent situations, courts may dispense with prior notice to the trust and grant leave ex parte on recorded reasons, after which the ordinary powers to grant interim relief become available; the trust can then seek recall of that ex parte leave. On this basis the appeals were dismissed, but the position was clarified for future cases.
Where a statute makes "leave of the court" a mandatory precondition to filing a particular kind of suit (as with suits against public charitable trusts), a court cannot use its general or supplemental powers to grant interim relief before that leave is actually granted. The correct route in a genuine emergency is to seek expedited or ex parte leave itself, not a receiver in the meantime.
