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's wife allegedly faced dowry-related harassment soon after their 1995 marriage, attempted suicide once in 1996 (after which the families reached a settlement), but continued to be ill-treated and eventually died by suicide later that year. The trial court convicted the husband and his family members of dowry death (Section 304B) and cruelty (Section 498A); on revision, the Kerala High Court acquitted the husband of the dowry-death charge but upheld his conviction for cruelty under Section 498A, reducing his sentence to one year.
The husband argued that once he was acquitted of the death-related charge (304B), the deceased's own prior statements about harassment could no longer be used against him under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act (which allows a dead person's statements about the cause or circumstances of their death), since the case, for him, no longer concerned her death. Reviewing a long line of precedent, the Supreme Court clarified that admissibility under Section 32(1) depends on whether the cause of death was in question at the time the evidence was introduced in the case, not on whether the death-related charge is eventually proved. On this basis, the Court held certain earlier judgments (Gananath Pattnaik and similar cases) were wrongly decided and overruled them to that extent. However, the Court found it unnecessary to rely on the deceased's own statements in this case at all, because independent evidence (chiefly the credible, largely unshaken testimony of the deceased's mother about the dowry demand, the earlier suicide attempt, and the subsequent settlement) was sufficient by itself to sustain the cruelty conviction. The appeal was dismissed and the one-year sentence upheld.
A dead person's statements about their harassment can still be used as evidence for other, non-death-related charges (like cruelty) as long as the cause of death was genuinely in question when the case was being tried: an eventual acquittal on the death charge does not retroactively wipe out that evidence; and courts should scrutinise but not automatically discard the testimony of family witnesses simply because they are related to the victim.
