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.
A family dispute over property partition among the Agarwals was referred to a sole arbitrator appointed by mutual consent of the parties in 2008. After some delay in the proceedings, two of the parties tried to revoke the arbitrator's mandate and separately filed an application before the District Court under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to terminate his mandate for undue delay. While that application was still pending, one party additionally filed a fresh application directly before the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Act, asking the High Court itself to terminate the arbitrator's mandate and appoint a new arbitrator. The High Court allowed this Section 11(6) application, terminated the sole arbitrator's mandate, and appointed a substitute arbitrator, also dismissing the original appointee's separate challenge (via Order VII Rule 11 CPC) to the Section 14 proceedings.
The Supreme Court held that Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration Act serve different purposes: Section 11(5) applies where there is no agreed procedure for appointment, while Section 11(6) applies where a procedure was agreed and is being invoked because the agreed mechanism failed; once an arbitrator has already been validly appointed by mutual consent, the arbitration mechanism cannot be invoked a second time under Section 11(6) merely to substitute that arbitrator. The Court ruled that a dispute over whether an arbitrator's mandate stands terminated for "undue delay" under Section 14(1)(a) must be decided by the "court" as specifically defined under Section 2(e) of the Act (i.e., through a Section 14(2) application), not through a parallel Section 11(6) application to the High Court. Accordingly, it quashed the High Court's order terminating and substituting the arbitrator, revived the parties' original Section 14(2) application before the District Court (which had meanwhile been withdrawn), and directed that court to decide the delay question on merits within four months, laying down a clear procedural roadmap for what happens depending on that outcome.
Under India's arbitration law, once an arbitrator is appointed by mutual agreement of the parties, a party unhappy with delay or conduct of that arbitrator must challenge the mandate through the specific court process laid down for that purpose (Section 14), and cannot bypass it by filing a fresh appointment application under a different provision (Section 11) to get the arbitrator replaced.
