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 borrower had mortgaged a Mumbai flat with Central Bank of India as security for a loan; when the loan turned into a non-performing asset, the bank invoked the SARFAESI Act to take physical possession of the flat. The appellant, who claimed to be an oral/unregistered tenant of the borrower since 2000 (and said he had been paying rent), tried to resist the bank's possession proceedings, asserting tenant protections under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate rejected his claim, holding that an unregistered tenancy could not defeat the bank's possession rights beyond the one-year statutory limit set out in an earlier Supreme Court ruling (Harshad Govardhan Sondagar).
The Supreme Court found the claimed tenancy highly suspect: the borrower had never informed the bank of any tenancy, and the stay application appeared to be an afterthought. The Court held that, under Section 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act, once the statutory demand notice was issued, no fresh tenancy rights could be recognized beyond the cut-off date in 2012, and since the appellant's own claimed tenancy was based only on an oral agreement with no right of renewal, his continued occupation after that date made him merely a "tenant at sufferance": someone with no legal right to remain, legally very close to a trespasser. The Court held the Rent Act's protections could not override the SARFAESI Act's self-executing debt-recovery scheme, criticized what it called a "devious practice" by the borrower's side to obstruct the bank's legitimate recovery, and ordered the appellant to hand over possession within 12 weeks, dismissing the appeal.
An unregistered, informal tenancy created without the bank's knowledge offers very limited protection against a bank's legal right to repossess mortgaged property under the SARFAESI Act, once the statutory cut-off for recognizing such tenancies passes, continued occupation does not carry real legal rights and can be treated almost like trespass.
