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.
SEBI noticed an unusual spike in the share price and trading volume of Mega Corporation Limited (a listed company then engaged in radio-taxi services and share trading) between January and September 2005, and after investigation, passed a final order in 2008 restraining the company and its promoter-directors from accessing the capital market/dealing in securities for one year, alleging the company had made undeclared profits, issued misleading advertisements to lure investors, and manipulated its share price through orchestrated "off-market" deals with connected entities. The Securities Appellate Tribunal, on the company's appeal, reversed SEBI's order in full, finding no proven link between the company and the alleged manipulative traders, accepting the advertisements as based on genuine business developments (a tours tie-up and a forex licence application), and holding that SEBI's refusal to let the company cross-examine a stockbroker whose letter was used against it violated natural justice. SEBI then appealed to the Supreme Court under Section 15Z of the SEBI Act, which permits appeals "on any question of law" only.
The Supreme Court first clarified the scope of a Section 15Z appeal, holding that the Tribunal's own fact-finding and its evolving interpretation of securities regulations deserve deference, and the Supreme Court will only intervene on genuine questions of law, not merely to re-weigh facts the Tribunal has already assessed on the record. Applying this standard, the Court held that the Tribunal's conclusions on the advertisements (finding them backed by real business steps, not fabrications) and on the alleged share-manipulation (finding no proven links between the company and the trading entities) were factual findings resting on the evidence, not points of law, and therefore not open to challenge in this appeal, so the dismissal of SEBI's case on those two points was upheld. However, relying on a judgment delivered by another bench the very next day (T. Takano v. SEBI), the Court held that the Tribunal was wrong to lay down a blanket, inviolable rule that a right to cross-examine a document's author always exists in SEBI proceedings; since the company had already been given the underlying letter and a chance to respond to it, and since the Court was not disturbing the Tribunal's factual findings on the merits anyway, the cross-examination issue was largely academic. It therefore set aside only the Tribunal's general pronouncement on a universal right to cross-examination, while otherwise affirming the Tribunal's decision and dismissing SEBI's appeal, leaving the broader legal question of the right to cross-examination open for a future case.
An appeal to the Supreme Court against a specialist tribunal like the Securities Appellate Tribunal is narrowly confined to genuine questions of law: the Tribunal's own findings of fact, reached on the evidence before it, will generally not be re-opened; and regulatory bodies like SEBI are not bound by an absolute, universal rule requiring cross-examination of every document's author, so long as the affected party has been shown the material relied upon and given a real opportunity to respond to it.
