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.
An Arbitral Tribunal had, in 2018, awarded Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund (the "Award Creditor") over Rs. 78 crore with 18% interest against Dharmesh S. Jain and his company, arising from a Share Purchase Agreement dispute. When the respondents challenged this award in the Bombay High Court, the High Court agreed to stay the award only if they deposited 50% of the awarded amount: a condition the respondents repeatedly failed to meet despite seeking multiple extensions. After the Supreme Court itself dismissed their further appeal but still gave them eight more weeks to deposit the money (order dated 17.09.2021), and then reaffirmed that direction in a later order (28.10.2021) warning that non-compliance would be treated seriously, the respondents still did not pay. The Award Creditor then filed this contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of the Supreme Court's own orders.
The Court rejected the respondents' argument that the deposit condition was merely "directory" (optional, enforceable only through execution proceedings) rather than a mandatory court direction. It held that once the Supreme Court's own orders (17.09.2021 and 28.10.2021) expressly required deposit within a specified time and warned of serious consequences, ignoring them, while simultaneously enjoying the benefit of the stay and the extended time, amounted to wilful disobedience. The Court distinguished case law cited by the respondents (holding that contempt should not be used as a substitute for execution) on the ground that here the orders in question came directly from the Supreme Court itself, not merely from an executable decree with no other order attached. It also rejected a late-stage plea of "financial difficulty" as an afterthought, noting it was never raised earlier and lacked bona fides. The Court accordingly held the respondents, particularly respondent No. 1 (Dharmesh S. Jain), guilty of civil contempt for disobeying both the High Court's order dated 08.08.2019 and the Supreme Court's order dated 28.10.2021, and directed that the respondents now be heard separately on the question of sentence/punishment.
A court order that fixes a deadline for payment or compliance is not optional just because the underlying dispute (like an arbitral award) could also be enforced through separate execution proceedings: deliberately taking the benefit of extended time from a court and then not complying can itself amount to contempt, inviting punishment independent of and in addition to normal execution remedies.
