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.
Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. (STPL) held land from the Kolkata Port Trust but stopped paying rent, and its lease expired in 1981. After STPL failed to vacate, the Port Trust obtained an eviction order from the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, and took possession, finding many containers on the land that belonged not to STPL but to third parties (including APL India). When the Port Trust sought to sell these containers under Section 6 of the Act to recover dues, the container owners (who had no contractual relationship with the Port Trust) challenged this in a writ petition, and the question of whether the Port Trust could seize and sell goods of such third parties was referred to a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court, which ruled against the Port Trust's claimed powers. The Port Trust appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court sided with the Port Trust, holding that Section 6 of the Public Premises Act must be interpreted independently of Sections 59 and 61 of the Major Port Trusts Act, and should not be read restrictively in a way that defeats its purpose of enabling authorities to recover public premises and dues quickly. It held that Section 5A and Section 6 together authorise an Estate Officer to remove and then sell goods found on public premises after an eviction order, regardless of who actually owns those goods and even where there is no privity of contract between the Port Trust and the owner, with the sale proceeds (after deducting dues) to be paid to whoever is rightfully entitled to them. The Court agreed with the Full Bench that an earlier Division Bench ruling (Canoro Resources) addressing Major Port Trusts Act lien provisions was obiter and not in conflict with the other precedent (Indian Rayon), but disagreed with the ultimate restrictive conclusion on the Port Trust's powers under the Public Premises Act itself. The underlying writ petition was sent back to the Single Judge of the High Court to be decided on merits within six months, in light of this ruling.
When a public authority formally evicts an unauthorised occupant from public land, it can lawfully seize and sell goods found on that land to recover dues even if those goods actually belong to third parties with no direct contractual relationship with the authority: owners must look to the sale-proceeds mechanism in the statute for recovering their share, rather than assuming their property is automatically protected from such action.
