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.
In 1958 the State of Rajasthan leased about 271 acres of industrial land at Kota to J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (JKSL) under state rules that required the land to be used only for the specific industry for which it was allotted. When JKSL became a "sick" company in 1998, its Kota unit was taken over by M/s Arfat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. (APPL) under a rehabilitation scheme that also required APPL to pay outstanding dues to JKSL's workers and revive the factories; fresh lease deeds were executed directly with the State Collector in 2007. Instead of reviving the factories (only one unit briefly restarted before a 2007 fire shut it down), APPL later approached RIICO, not the Collector who actually held the lessor's authority, and got permission to sub-divide the land and convert part of it from industrial to commercial use just before a change of state government. Bishambhar Prasad, along with RIICO, the State of Rajasthan, and two workers' unions, was one of the appellants challenging a Rajasthan High Court judgment that had struck down the subsequent Cabinet-level decision (taken by the new government) cancelling these conversion/sub-division permissions and the supplementary leases granted to APPL.
The Supreme Court held that RIICO never actually held leasehold rights over the LIA Kota land, the State Government remained the lessor throughout since JKSL's and later APPL's leases were executed directly with the Collector under the 1959 Rules, so RIICO had no authority to grant sub-division or land-use conversion permissions to APPL in the first place, and the supplementary lease deeds it signed were void. The Court found no violation of natural justice or Rajasthan's rules of business in how the State Cabinet Committee reached its cancellation decision, since a benefit resting on an invalid exercise of power cannot generate a right to a hearing, and rejected APPL's claims of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation because those doctrines cannot override the larger public interest in preserving industrial land for its intended purpose. The High Court judgment was set aside and APPL's writ petition was dismissed, while the Court expressly declined to rule on the pending High Court litigation over the validity of the original 2007 transfer leases and left the workers' unions' claims for unpaid dues to be pursued before the appropriate government/other forums, since 21 years after the original settlement the factories still had not been revived.
A government corporation or authority cannot grant permissions or sign leases over land it does not actually hold in its own right: approvals issued without the underlying legal authority are void regardless of how long they stood or how much a private party relied on them, and equitable doctrines like promissory estoppel cannot be used to defeat the public interest in land being used for the purpose it was allotted for.
