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 appellant, a stock-broker, had taken an overdraft facility from a bank (later merged into Punjab National Bank) for his share-trading business, pledging shares as security; the facility was progressively enhanced from Rs. 1 crore to Rs. 6 crore over the years. When the account became irregular after a stock market crash, the bank sold part of the pledged shares in 2002 (allegedly at a low point, causing him loss) and later reached a One Time Settlement with him, after which it issued a "No Dues Certificate" but did not return his remaining pledged shares. The appellant filed a consumer complaint against the bank for deficiency in service, but the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed it, holding that he was not a "consumer" because he had availed the overdraft facility for a "commercial purpose."
The Supreme Court traced the legislative history of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, which excludes from "consumer" status anyone who avails goods or services for a commercial purpose, unless the explanation applies: i.e., unless the services were availed "exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment." Applying the tests laid down in earlier precedents (including Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust), the Court held that whether a transaction is commercial depends on the dominant purpose, profit generation versus personal livelihood, and that a business-to-business relationship aimed at expanding profit generally falls outside consumer protection. On the facts, the appellant was already an established stock-broker who took and repeatedly enhanced the overdraft facility specifically to expand his trading business and profits, making it a purely business-to-business relationship with the bank, not a service availed exclusively for earning a basic livelihood through self-employment. The Court therefore upheld the Commission's finding that he was not a "consumer" under the Act and dismissed the appeal, while noting he remained free to pursue his grievance in an appropriate forum (such as a civil court).
The consumer protection forums are meant for genuine consumer grievances, not commercial or business disputes: a person who avails a bank's services (like an overdraft) to expand an already-existing profit-making business, rather than exclusively to earn a basic livelihood through self-employment, cannot invoke the Consumer Protection Act and must instead seek relief through ordinary civil remedies.
