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.
9257 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 tenant occupied the first floor of an old building in Bangalore. The Bangalore City Corporation, after finding the building dangerously dilapidated, ordered its demolition; the building was demolished in January 1995, just three days after the demolition order was served. The tenant sued the new owners and the Corporation, first for an injunction and later possession, and separately for damages for his lost goods and business, claiming the demolition was done in haste without proper notice. The Karnataka High Court ruled in the tenant's favour on both counts, finding the demolition unlawful and ordering restoration of an equivalent shop plus upholding the damages decree.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, allowing the new owners' appeal, though it still awarded the tenant's heirs Rs. 5 lakh in compensation. The Court held that a "statutory tenant" protected by a State Rent Act cannot claim a right to repossession of demolished premises under the general Transfer of Property Act: that right exists only within the four corners of the specific Rent Act. It also held that the Corporation's demolition process was not an arbitrary rush job, since the tenant had already been through proceedings and a Court-ordered waiting period before the final demolition order, and that the tenant's separate suit for damages was barred because he should have included that claim in his first suit under the "one bundle of facts" rule in Order II Rule 2 CPC. Still, the Court found there was technically not a full three clear days' notice before demolition, and ordered a one-time compensation payment to balance the equities.
A tenant's rights after a building is demolished depend on the specific rent-control law that governs the tenancy, not on general property law; and anyone with multiple claims arising from the same set of events (like a wrongful demolition) should raise all of them together in one lawsuit, or risk losing the right to sue separately later.
