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 petitioner-company had been allotted a commercial plot in Surajpur, Gautam Budh Nagar (UP) in 2006 by UPSIDC on a 90-year leasehold basis, on which it built a mall/multiplex. Relying on a later government policy (2013, amended 2016) meant for converting leasehold land used for tourism/theme-park projects into freehold, and on a 2016 letter from the Director General, Tourism, the company sought to convert its leasehold rights into freehold rights. The State rejected this request by an order dated 24.01.2022, and after a writ petition filed in the Allahabad High Court was transferred to the Supreme Court, the company challenged that rejection directly before the Court.
The Supreme Court held that the freehold-conversion policy simply did not apply to this land, since the amended policy came into force only after the mall's completion certificate had already been issued and there was no provision making it retrospective in a way that could override existing lease terms. It found that the 2016 tourism department letter, despite being called an "approval" by the petitioner, was only a recommendation to treat the project as a theme-based mall and did not, and could not, amount to a binding decision granting freehold rights, especially since the committee that issued it did not include UPSIDC, the authority actually holding the lease. The Court also rejected reliance on an earlier recommendatory letter from UPSIDC's own Managing Director as legally baseless. Consequently, the impugned order refusing conversion to freehold was upheld and the writ petition was dismissed, with the Court clarifying its ruling was confined strictly to the freehold-conversion issue and had no bearing on any other pending disputes between the parties.
A government policy benefit cannot be claimed retrospectively or extended beyond its actual terms merely because an internal committee's recommendatory letter uses favourable language like "approval", only a binding decision by the competent authority, consistent with the policy's actual scope and the existing lease terms, can confer such a right.
