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 1997, the landowners (appellants) agreed to sell about 40 acres of agricultural land near Hyderabad to Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. for roughly Rs. 40.2 lakh, of which the purchaser paid about Rs. 34.8 lakh but failed to pay the balance of about Rs. 5.4 lakh within the 3-month deadline fixed in the agreement. Years later, the purchaser sued for specific performance (i.e., to force the sale through). The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the purchaser was never put in possession, had suppressed that one of its cheques had bounced, and had approached the court "with unclean hands," but the High Court's first appellate court reversed this and decreed specific performance in the purchaser's favour for 90% of the land (corresponding to the percentage of price paid).
The Supreme Court restored the trial court's view, holding that the purchaser was never in possession of the land (photographic evidence showed no development had occurred, contrary to the purchaser's claims) and had breached the essential payment obligation under the contract, while also suing after unexplained delay of nearly five years, both factors weighing heavily against the discretionary remedy of specific performance. On the High Court's alternative reasoning that the purchaser should at least get 90% of the land under Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act (partial performance), the Court held that provision only helps a party who is genuinely "unable" to perform through no fault of their own (e.g., part of the property having ceased to exist). It does not rescue a purchaser who simply defaulted on payment. Since the purchaser was the defaulting party, the appeal was allowed, the High Court's decree set aside, and, to balance the equities, the vendors were directed to refund the money already received with 7.5% annual interest.
Specific performance is a discretionary remedy, not an automatic right: a buyer who fails to pay on time, delays suing for years, and cannot show they were kept ready and willing to perform will not get the property, even if they already paid a large part of the price; at best, they may get their money back with interest.
