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.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1073
In circumstantial-evidence cases, forensic and DNA evidence must actually corroborate the alleged crime: a conviction cannot survive where the most crucial scientific evidence, on its own terms, points away from rather than toward the prosecution's theory.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1074
A conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence requires every link in the chain, timeline, witness credibility, forensic matches, and motive, to be proven beyond reasonable doubt; gaps or suppressed evidence at any link entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt, even in a serious case like a double murder.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8505
Courts will not quash a criminal case merely because the accused has a plausible alibi-type defence; unless that defence is conclusive and undisputed, the matter must be tested through the ordinary trial process.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8547
A private compromise between victim and accused cannot by itself secure quashing of a case involving serious, heinous allegations like attempted murder with a weapon: such matters must proceed to trial regardless of settlement.
First Appeal from Order · 2026:DHC:8563
Railway Claims Tribunals cannot reject a bona fide passenger's death claim based on speculative inferences when there is no direct evidence of an alternative cause of death; the compensation scheme under the Railways Act is to be interpreted generously in favour of victims' families.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8559
In matrimonial offences, courts can and do quash criminal proceedings once a genuine compromise is verified directly with the complainant, sparing both parties a prolonged and pointless trial.
Bail Application · 2026:DHC:8541
A co-accused's bail does not automatically extend to another accused where their actual roles in the offence differ materially; delay caused by one's own defence counsel cannot later be used as a ground for bail.
Execution Petition · 2026:DHC:8567
An arbitral award must be adequately stamped before a court can enforce it; courts give only a limited window to cure such defects, after which the award becomes legally unusable until the deficiency is fixed.
Arbitration Petition · 2026:DHC:8555
A genuine settlement reached through mediation renders a pending arbitration-related court petition moot, allowing parties to close out litigation quickly once they resolve their dispute privately.
7878 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 plaintiff, R. Pannerselvam, sued for a permanent injunction to stop the defendants (A. Subramanian and his son-in-law) from disturbing his peaceful possession of a plot of land, claiming he had purchased it by a registered sale deed from the legal heirs of the original owner, Dhasi Naidu. The defendants disputed the sale deed's validity and the power of attorney behind it, and also claimed rival title through a different chain of succession. Crucially, defendant Subramanian had earlier filed his own suit (in 1987) for declaration of title and possession over the very same property, which was dismissed and the dismissal upheld in appeal, meaning courts had already found he was not in possession and had no proven title.
The Supreme Court upheld the Madras High Court's decision decreeing the injunction suit in the plaintiff's favor, holding that since this was purely a suit for injunction (not one for declaration of title), the courts were not required to conclusively determine title before granting relief, especially given the plaintiff's possession was effectively admitted by the defendant's own prior failed litigation. The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that "possession is good against all but the true owner" and that a person in settled possession is entitled to protection by injunction against a defendant who has himself previously failed to prove his own title or possession over the same property. The First Appellate Court had erred by going into the validity of the power-of-attorney/title documents when the core issue was simply whose possession prevailed, and the High Court was right to correct this and restore the trial court's decree.
In a straightforward suit for injunction (as opposed to a suit for declaration of title), a plaintiff who can show settled possession need not conclusively prove full chain-of-title, and a defendant who has already lost an earlier case attempting to establish his own title/possession over the same property cannot later resist an injunction by raising fresh doubts about the plaintiff's documents.
