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 appellant's wife held a General Power of Attorney (GPA) for him in four related civil proceedings and later, during their pendency, also qualified and enrolled as an advocate. Earlier orders of the Trial Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court (dated 20.04.2018 and 14.12.2018) had settled between these very parties that she could continue to appear as her husband's power agent, but not in her professional capacity as an advocate. When the contesting respondent again objected to her examining witnesses in this capacity, the Trial Court rejected the objection on 07.02.2019 citing the earlier binding orders, but the High Court, relying on a Division Bench precedent (Madupu Harinarayana), disapproved the Trial Court's orders and held a GPA holder could not participate in the proceedings, while granting her liberty instead to act as an advocate. The appellant challenged this High Court order before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's order, restoring the Trial Court's orders. It held that the earlier orders dated 20.04.2018 and 14.12.2018 (which had already conclusively decided, between the same parties in the same proceedings, that the wife could appear as GPA holder) operated as res judicata, and the High Court committed a grave error by reopening that settled question. The Court also found the High Court had mischaracterised the actual issue (wrongly framing it as whether a GPA holder could act "like a counsel and cross-examine witnesses," when the wife had never sought to act as an advocate) and had misapplied the Madupu Harinarayana precedent, which dealt with a different, unrelated factual scenario involving a non-advocate GPA holder engaged in frivolous litigation. The Court clarified that concerns about conflict of interest or advocates misusing GPA status to bypass professional discipline were irrelevant here, since the wife was appearing strictly as a power agent, not as an advocate.
Once a legal question between the same parties in the same proceedings has been conclusively decided by an earlier binding order, it cannot be reopened at a later stage of the same litigation (the doctrine of res judicata applies even within different applications in ongoing proceedings), and a person can validly act as a General Power of Attorney holder for a family member even if they happen to also be a qualified advocate, so long as they act strictly in the GPA capacity and not as counsel.
