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.
In 1983, the appellants' grandfather (later succeeded by the appellants) allegedly agreed to sell a plot of land in Ranchi to the respondents' family for Rs. 70,000. After delays and partial payments, a fresh agreement was signed in 1989 raising the price to Rs. 81,000 (with only Rs. 1,000 left unpaid), and specifying that the sale deed would be executed and registered within one month: i.e., by 16 January 1990, while also containing a separate clause saying the agreement itself would "remain valid for five years." When the sale deed was never executed, the buyers filed a civil suit for specific performance in September 1993. The trial court dismissed the suit as time-barred, but the first appellate court and the Jharkhand High Court both reversed this and ordered the sale deed to be executed, reasoning that the five-year validity clause extended the buyers' window to sue.
The Supreme Court held that under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a suit for specific performance of a contract must be filed within three years from the date fixed for performance in the contract, and here, that date was clearly fixed as 16 January 1990 (one month from the 1989 agreement). The three-year limitation period therefore expired on 16 January 1993, well before the suit was actually filed in September 1993. The Court held that the lower courts were wrong to rely on the separate "five years validity" clause to extend this period: a clause about how long the underlying agreement remains valid is legally distinct from, and does not alter, the specific date fixed for performing the contract (executing the sale deed). Because the suit was filed out of time, it had to be dismissed regardless of whether the underlying agreement to sell was genuine. As a matter of equity, though, since the buyers had genuinely paid Rs. 80,000 toward the purchase and no other relief for its return had been sought, the Court directed the sellers to refund this amount with 12% annual interest from the date of payment.
In a contract for sale of property, a clause stating the "agreement is valid for X years" is not the same as, and does not extend, the specific deadline fixed for performing the contract: the three-year limitation clock for filing a specific performance suit starts running from that performance deadline, so buyers must act well within it or risk losing their right to sue even on a genuine agreement.
