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.
Under Rule 19 of the Chennai Development Control Rules, anyone developing a layout larger than 10,000 sq. metres must set apart 10% of the land as open space for communal and recreational use and gift it free of cost to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA). Vasanth Apartments in Velachery, 12 blocks with about 180 homes, was built under such an approval, and the developer gifted about 1,164 sq. metres as OSR in February 1994. The land was never turned into a park; instead the Chennai Corporation laid a kachha road across it in 2003 that thousands of local residents used as a shortcut. The apartment owners' association went to court asking that the land be maintained as a park; a Single Judge agreed, but the Division Bench reversed him in 2007 finding the association had no right in the land. The association separately challenged Rule 19 itself as an unconstitutional taking of property, and other builders (Keyaram Hotels, CREDAI) joined in attacking the rule.
In a 244-page judgment the Supreme Court upheld the OSR rule on every ground: it is statutory, within the powers of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, not arbitrary or discriminatory under Article 14, and not a violation of the right to property under Article 300A. The Court reasoned that reserving open space is a legitimate condition attached to the privilege of developing land, serving vital public interests such as green cover, oxygen supply and recreation for all; the word "communal" in the rule means the public at large, not just the residents of a particular complex. As for Vasanth Apartments, the Court noted that the gift was made by the developer, not the residents, that the residents never held any property right in the OSR land, and that they challenged the rule only twelve years after the gift. Since a road had apparently existed on part of the land even at the time of the gift and was used by huge numbers of people, the Court declined to order it removed; but it directed that any gifted land beyond the road must be used only as OSR, and that the CMDA may consider letting the association maintain that area. Crucially, the Court laid down that OSR land can never be diverted to any other purpose. It must not be used as a dumping yard or for anything other than open space, and the authorities are duty-bound to enforce this. The Vasanth appeals were disposed of on these terms, and the other appeals and CREDAI's writ petition were dismissed.
Requiring developers to surrender a share of a layout as public open space is a valid planning condition, not an unconstitutional confiscation. Home-buyers do not own that reserved land, but everyone, residents and neighbours alike, has a legally enforceable expectation that it stays open space and is never diverted to dumping or other uses.
