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.
Tata Steel received a Show Cause Notice covering financial years 2018-19 to 2020-21, based on a Comptroller and Auditor General audit objection about a mismatch in input tax credit and short payment of tax. The notice invoked Section 74 of the CGST Act, which allows tax authorities a longer five-year window (instead of the normal three years under Section 73) but only where fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts is alleged. Notably, the department's own Assessing Officer had initially placed the matter in the "call book" (i.e., kept it in abeyance) and was contesting the underlying audit objection before Parliament's Public Accounts Committee, suggesting the department itself was not convinced of any wrongdoing, yet later revived the notice as a "protective" measure purely because the normal three-year limitation period was about to expire.
The Supreme Court held that invoking Section 74's extended limitation requires more than reciting the words "fraud" or "suppression" in a notice: the notice itself must set out the foundational facts that actually support such an allegation, and mere formulaic language does not show real application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Calculating the actual limitation timeline (accounting for GST return-filing extensions and the Supreme Court's own COVID-era limitation-extension order), the Court found the notice was issued after the ordinary three-year limitation had already expired, and the department's attempt to fall back on the five-year fraud-based limitation failed because the notice contained no real factual basis for the suppression allegation: just a bland, unsupported assertion. The Court also rejected the department's argument that a "protective" notice could be issued merely to beat the clock, noting this concept is alien to the GST regime. The Show Cause Notice and the resulting Order-in-Original were both set aside, though the Court left the door open for the department to issue a fresh, properly grounded Section 74 notice before 28 February 2027, since some of the extended period remained available.
Tax authorities cannot use the extended fraud-based limitation period as a fallback simply because the ordinary limitation period has run out: a notice alleging fraud or suppression must actually spell out the specific facts supporting that serious allegation, not just recite the statutory buzzwords.
