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 Haryana government acquired over 150 acres of land in Village Malpura and neighbouring villages in 2010 under a Section 4(1) notification for an industrial complex. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation using rates from a Divisional Land Rates Fixation Committee, which the landowners protested as too low; a Reference Court raised the rate somewhat (deducting 60% from a comparable sale exemplar), and the Punjab and Haryana High Court raised it further to about Rs. 1.21 crore per acre but without clearly explaining the deduction it applied. Both the landowners and the State appealed to the Supreme Court, one side arguing the compensation was still too low and the other that it was too high.
The Supreme Court held that while the High Court was right to reject the Reference Court's unjustified 60% deduction, its own final figure of Rs. 1.21 crore per acre was reached "in an abstract way" without properly applying the settled "deduction for development" principles from Lal Chand v. Union of India and related precedents. Examining the sale exemplars afresh, particularly Ex. P-Y, a sale just before the acquisition notification, in the same village and comparable location. The Court found the land was neither pure agricultural land nor fully developed, but had industrial potential and a Change of Land Use certificate, warranting the standard one-third deduction rather than a heavier one. Applying this, it fixed the market value at Rs. 1,49,14,975 per acre uniformly for all the lands acquired under the notification, rejecting the State's suggestion of a "belting system" (different rates by distance from the highway) since all the land fell under a single acquisition notification.
When courts determine compensation for acquired land using comparable sale exemplars, they must apply a reasoned, precedent-based deduction for development (rather than an arbitrary percentage) that accounts for the land's actual characteristics (its potential use, existing infrastructure, and how developed the surrounding area already is) and land acquired together under one notification should ordinarily get a uniform valuation rather than being split by "belting."
