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.
The plaintiff (Bhavyanath) and the defendant (K.V. Balan) entered into an agreement in April 2007 for the sale of about 75¾ cents of land in Kerala, with part payment made upfront and the balance payable within a fixed time. After the plaintiff paid a further Rs. 3,00,000 in August 2007, a dispute arose over whether the property had been properly measured and whether the plaintiff remained ready and willing to pay the rest and complete the purchase by the agreed deadline. The plaintiff deposited the balance consideration with the Government Treasury and sued for specific performance; the trial court decreed in his favour, but the Kerala High Court reversed that decree on appeal, prompting this further appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined the evidence on the plaintiff's financial capacity and conduct (including his explanation of how he arranged funds, through gold ornaments and cash held by his family) and found no serious challenge to this evidence in cross-examination. Weighing the facts as a whole, the Court held that the High Court had erred in overturning the trial court's decree, and that the plaintiff had indeed remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the trial court's decree for specific performance was restored, but with modifications: using its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court directed the appellant to also pay 6% annual interest on the balance consideration from the date of filing the suit until the deposit was made, which the sellers could withdraw, before the final conveyance deed need be executed. Each side was left to bear its own costs.
In a specific performance dispute, continuously demonstrating genuine readiness and willingness to pay (including actually depositing the money with a court/treasury when the other side is uncooperative) is critical to winning the remedy, and higher courts can add fair conditions like interest payments when restoring such a decree, to balance the delay caused during litigation.
