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.
A dispute arose over a small plot of land in Madhya Pradesh that had originally belonged to two landowners, was sold to one Urmila Devi in 1972, and later resold by her to the appellants in 1989, who took possession and built on it. A plaintiff named Matadin sued in 1990 claiming he had acquired the land by adverse possession based on old land-record (Khasra) entries from 1960-61, and sought to have the earlier sale deeds declared void. The trial court ruled in the plaintiff's favour, the first appellate court reversed that decision, and the High Court in second appeal restored the plaintiff's decree, prompting the purchasers to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's findings in second appeal were perverse, as the evidence clearly showed that Urmila Devi had taken possession of the land before the 12-year adverse possession period claimed by the plaintiff could have matured, making his claim legally unsustainable. The Court reiterated the well-established legal test for adverse possession, the claimant must affirmatively prove the date he came into possession, the nature and continuity of that possession, and that it was open, hostile, and known to the true owner for the statutory period, and found the plaintiff had failed to discharge this burden, relying instead on suspicious land-record entries and an afterthought claim introduced only after evidence was recorded. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the first appellate court's order dismissing the suit, and allowed the appeals.
A person claiming land by "adverse possession" bears a strict burden to prove exactly when and how continuous, open, and hostile possession began and was maintained for the full statutory period: courts will not presume such possession from ambiguous or suspicious land records, and the true owner's documented chain of sale takes precedence absent clear proof to the contrary.
