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 respondent (plaintiff) sued to establish her tenancy of a Mumbai premises, claiming she had paid Rs. 85,000 to the original tenants for transfer of tenancy rights and that the landlord had also recognised her as tenant. Her suit was dismissed by the trial court but decreed on appeal, declaring her the tenant and directing the landlord to hand over possession. When she sought execution of this decree, the appellant (a stranger to the original suit) resisted, claiming that during the pendency of the plaintiff's appeal, both the original tenant and the landlord had separately executed documents on the same day (24 January 2014) purportedly transferring rights to him. His resistance application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC was rejected by the Execution Court, the Appellate Bench, and the High Court in revision.
The Supreme Court held that any assignment by the original tenant to the appellant was barred by Section 26 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act (which prohibits a tenant from subletting or transferring tenancy rights unless there is a contract to the contrary or landlord ratification), and found no valid ratification because the landlord's own document to the appellant never referred to or acknowledged the tenant's assignment. The Court also found the appellant's case self-contradictory: his claim of possession from the "lawful tenant" (who purportedly handed over possession for Rs. 9,40,000) was legally and factually irreconcilable with his simultaneous claim of a separate tenancy created the same day directly with the landlord (who claimed to be in possession himself), both could not be true, and if the tenant's tenancy was still valid, the landlord could not simultaneously create a fresh tenancy in the appellant's favour without first extinguishing it. Because these transactions were also made only during the pendency of the plaintiff's appeal and were legally unsustainable, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the appellant's resistance to execution and dismissed his appeals.
A person who acquires "rights" in tenanted property through documents executed by different, competing claimants (a purported tenant and the landlord) on the same day, especially during ongoing litigation over that property, cannot rely on mutually contradictory transactions to defeat execution of a court decree; such last-minute, internally inconsistent transfers will not be recognised by the courts.
