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.
S.D. Manohara, an employee of Konkan Railway Corporation since 1990, tendered his resignation on 5 December 2013, asking that it take effect after one month. The employer claimed it accepted the resignation effective 7 April 2014 via an internal communication dated 15 April 2014, and rejected Manohara's subsequent letter of 26 May 2014 seeking to withdraw the resignation as having come too late, eventually relieving him from 1 July 2014. Manohara contended that the 15 April 2014 letter was never actually served on him, that he had continued reporting for duty (including as late as 19 May 2014) and had been asked by the employer to explain unauthorized absence, and that his wife had separately written twice asking the employer not to accept the resignation, all pointing to the resignation not having been finally accepted before he sought to withdraw it. A Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court ruled in his favour and ordered reinstatement, but a Division Bench reversed this on appeal by the employer.
The Supreme Court held that the entire dispute turned on the narrow factual question of whether the resignation was withdrawn before it was accepted. It found the employer's letter of 15 April 2014 was merely an internal communication never clearly shown to have been served on Manohara, and this was corroborated by the employer's own subsequent conduct, asking him to report to duty and explain his absence, which would make no sense if his resignation had already taken final effect. Combined with his wife's letters requesting non-acceptance and his continued presence at work, the Court agreed with the Single Judge that the resignation had not attained finality before the withdrawal request, and held the Division Bench erred in relying on the internal 15 April 2014 letter. It set aside the Division Bench's judgment, ordered reinstatement within thirty days, but, to balance equities given the long non-working period, restricted back pay to 50% of salary for the relevant period, with that period still counted for pension purposes.
An employer's internal, unserved communication accepting a resignation cannot be treated as final and binding if the employer's own later conduct (like asking the employee to report to work) contradicts it: an employee can validly withdraw a resignation any time before it is actually and effectively accepted, and courts will look at the surrounding conduct of both sides, not just paperwork dates.
