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.
In 1994 the proprietor of Aman Semi-Conductors, a qualified engineer, applied to the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) for an industrial plot in Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, to manufacture FM radio and audio components. He was allotted the plot in 1995 under an agreement requiring construction to start within six months and commercial production to begin within two years, failing which HSIDC could take the plot back. No construction ever started; the allottee blamed the absence of roads, electricity and other infrastructure and kept asking for extensions. After three show-cause notices, HSIDC resumed the plot in September 1998 and sent back the Rs 1,66,425 he had paid, which he refused. The District Consumer Forum and the State Commission ruled in his favour, but the National Commission (NCDRC) later sided with HSIDC.
The Supreme Court upheld the NCDRC and dismissed the appeals. It found that the allottee had done nothing concrete in five years (no building plans submitted, no machinery procured, no registrations obtained) and his replies to the notices were vague, so the inference was that he never genuinely intended to set up the unit and was holding the plot speculatively. The condition that the plot must be used to set up an industry within a fixed time, on pain of resumption, is a valid and binding condition (following the earlier decision in Indu Kakkar), because industrial plots are allotted at concessional terms precisely to promote industry and jobs, not to enrich speculators. The natural-justice argument failed because three show-cause notices had been issued and largely ignored. Since HSIDC had held his money for 25 years after he returned the refund cheque, the Court directed HSIDC to refund Rs 1,66,425 with 6% annual interest from 18 September 1998, within six weeks.
Subsidised land allotted by the government for a stated purpose comes with real strings attached. If you do not use it for that purpose within the agreed time, the authority can lawfully take it back, and consumer forums will not rescue an allottee who cannot show any genuine effort to comply.
