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.
In 1990, Daljit Singh entered an agreement to buy land from Janraj Singh (defendant no. 1) for an agreed price, paying earnest money. When Janraj failed to complete the sale, Daljit sued for specific performance in December 1992. Days later, in January 1993, Janraj sold the same land to Shingara Singh (the appellant) instead, while the lawsuit was already pending. The trial court and first appellate court denied Daljit specific performance (giving him only a refund of his earnest money), reasoning that Shingara Singh was a bona fide purchaser unaware of the earlier agreement. The High Court reversed this, ruling that the sale to Shingara Singh, made after the lawsuit was filed, was hit by the doctrine of "lis pendens" and could not defeat Daljit's claim. Shingara Singh appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision and dismissed the appeal. It held that the doctrine of lis pendens (Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act) applies to any transfer of property made while a related lawsuit is pending, regardless of whether the buyer knew about the litigation: good faith or bona fide purchase is not a defence. Since the sale to Shingara Singh occurred after Daljit had already filed his suit, that sale could not override Daljit's earlier agreement to buy the land. The Court also held that the first appellate court had wrongly reopened a finding (that the original agreement was not the product of fraud) which neither side had specifically challenged on appeal, applying the settled principle that a party who has not filed a cross-appeal or cross-objection cannot attack a portion of a decree that went against them.
Once a property dispute is filed in court, any sale of that property to a third party during the litigation does not protect the buyer, even if the buyer had no knowledge of the case: the eventual court decision binds them regardless. Buyers should always check for pending litigation before purchasing property.
