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 dispute concerned two partnership firms in which the plaintiff (respondent No.1, S. Raghuraj Reddy) was a partner along with the appellants (the Shivraj Reddy family) and others: one firm engaged in construction contracting, and another engaged in construction, film production and cinema business. The plaintiff filed separate suits seeking dissolution of each firm and rendition of accounts. In the first suit, the trial court decreed dissolution, but a Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court set this aside on the ground that the firm had already stood automatically dissolved back in 1984 (upon the death of a partner) and the 1996 suit was therefore time-barred; a Division Bench then restored the trial court's decree, holding that limitation was never pleaded at trial and should not have been considered for the first time on appeal. In the second suit (concerning the film-business firm), the trial court similarly decreed dissolution and rendition of accounts (limited to three years before the suit), and the Division Bench upheld this in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants challenged both Division Bench rulings before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Division Bench that a limitation defence not raised in the pleadings before the trial court cannot ordinarily be introduced for the first time at the appellate stage, especially where there was also evidence that the firm continued its business activities even after the partner's death, undermining the automatic-dissolution argument. On the second firm, the appellants could not show any infirmity in the concurrent findings by the trial court and both appellate forums directing dissolution and rendition of accounts. Since three courts of competent jurisdiction had already returned concurrent findings of fact in the plaintiff's favour, the Supreme Court held this was not a fit case for interference under its extraordinary jurisdiction (Article 136 of the Constitution), and dismissed both appeals with no order as to costs.
A legal defence like limitation must ordinarily be raised at the earliest stage (in the pleadings before the trial court). It generally cannot be sprung for the first time on appeal; and the Supreme Court is reluctant to re-examine factual findings that multiple lower courts have already agreed upon concurrently.
