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.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1066
Courts will not infer a concluded oral contract for the sale of immovable property just because the other side's witnesses seemed evasive: the party seeking specific performance must independently and affirmatively prove every essential term was genuinely agreed.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1065
Even in serious, high-value corruption cases, prolonged pre-trial detention cannot be used as a substitute for punishment when the trial is unlikely to conclude soon and the evidence is already secured: bail remains the touchstone principle under Article 21's personal liberty protection.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1067
Preventive detention cannot be used as a backdoor way to keep someone in custody once the ordinary criminal process, including bail, has already run its course on the same facts; the detaining authority must show a genuine, independent risk of future harm, not just recycle the criminal case file.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1068
In land acquisition disputes, courts will readily restore a uniform, fair market rate across similarly-situated parcels, but ancillary compensation heads (like moveable equipment such as tubewells) still require the claimant to prove their case with admissible evidence, not private reports whose authors were never examined in court.
First Appeal from Order · 2026:DHC:8447
If you are injured while genuinely trying to board or exit a train, you are very likely covered under railway "untoward incident" compensation law, even if you technically hadn't fully boarded yet: courts read this protection broadly in favour of passengers, and contemporaneous official records (station logs, police diary entries) carry more weight than a statement taken from you much later.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8404
Courts will not entertain vague, unsubstantiated allegations of judicial bias, and a request to combine cases becomes moot once the other related proceedings have already concluded: genuine grievances about trial delay or procedure must be backed by specific, demonstrable facts, not just repeated litigation.
Bail Application · 2026:DHC:8403
Anticipatory bail can be granted even in matrimonial cases involving serious sexual-offence allegations where there is unexplained delay in reporting, no evidence substantiating the need for custodial interrogation, and the investigating agency's own conduct (e.g., undocumented "verbal" notices) fails to justify arrest, though this is assessed only for bail purposes, not as a finding on guilt.
Regular First Appeal · 2026:DHC:8407
In family property disputes, signing a Relinquishment Deed acknowledging receipt of consideration, and then waiting years without challenging it or pursuing your claimed share, will make it very difficult to later prove you were never actually paid; courts expect contemporaneous action (a legal notice, a suit) and corroborating evidence, not delayed assertions alone.
Regular First Appeal · 2026:DHC:8401
A tenant who claims to have paid a large sum toward an informal "mortgage" or side arrangement must be able to prove it with solid evidence (receipts, corroborating witnesses): bare assertions, especially when contradicted by one's own family members under cross-examination, will not defeat a landlord's claim for rent and possession.
6201 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.
This matter began as a transfer petition between a husband and wife (whose own marriage was already dissolved by mutual consent via Article 142 back in 2015) but was kept pending because it raised a recurring legal question affecting thousands of matrimonial cases: can the Supreme Court, using its special "complete justice" power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution, dissolve a marriage by mutual consent without making couples wait out the mandatory six-month "cooling off" period under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, and can it grant divorce even against one spouse's wishes where the marriage has irretrievably broken down (a ground Parliament has never actually written into the divorce law)? A five-judge Constitution Bench was set up to settle conflicting past rulings on this point.
The Court held that its Article 142(1) power lets it depart from ordinary procedural and even substantive law requirements when necessary to do complete justice, so long as it doesn't override fundamental rights or express constitutional/statutory prohibitions. It ruled that the Court can waive the six-month statutory waiting period for a second divorce motion where the marriage is genuinely, irretrievably dead, and can also quash connected proceedings (such as domestic violence complaints, maintenance cases, or criminal cases under Section 498-A IPC) as part of a comprehensive settlement. The Court further held it can grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, a ground not found in the Hindu Marriage Act, even if one spouse objects, but only as a matter of careful, case-specific discretion, not as a matter of right, weighing factors like length of separation (ordinarily six years or more), the nature of mutual allegations, past reconciliation attempts, and crucially, ensuring fair alimony and provision for any dependent spouse or children. It clarified that ordinary litigants cannot invoke this route by directly filing a writ petition under Article 32; it exists as a power only this Court can exercise in a pending "cause or matter" before it.
A marriage that has completely and irreversibly broken down can, in appropriate cases, be ended by the Supreme Court exercising its special constitutional power, even without both spouses' consent and without going through years of contested litigation in the lower courts, but only the Supreme Court can grant this relief directly, and only after carefully weighing fairness to both spouses, particularly maintenance and child welfare; the ordinary divorce process before family courts, including the statutory waiting period, otherwise remains the norm.
