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 respondent, a real-estate developer, applied for planning permission to build a multi-storeyed complex near Chennai and paid the development charges demanded by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) in March 2012, while still completing conditions like obtaining a No-Objection Certificate from the water board. Before planning permission was actually granted (which happened only in May 2012), the Tamil Nadu government revised upward, effective 1 April 2012, both the "Infrastructure and Amenities" (I&A) charges and the guideline values used to calculate "Premium Floor Space Index" (Premium FSI) charges. CMDA then raised a fresh demand in August 2012 for the difference based on the new, higher rates, which the Madras High Court (Single Judge and Division Bench) quashed entirely, reasoning the developer had already paid under the rates prevailing when it applied and complied with conditions.
The Supreme Court held that, following a consistent line of its own precedent (including State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone and Howrah Municipal Corporation v. Ganges Rope Co.), merely applying for and paying charges toward a permission does not create a vested right to have that application decided or charged under the old rules: the charges applicable are generally those in force on the date permission is actually granted, not the date of application. Since planning permission was only granted in May 2012, after the revised Premium FSI rates took effect on 1 April 2012, the Court held CMDA was legally entitled to demand and collect the higher Premium FSI charges, and restored that part of the demand. However, the Court distinguished and upheld the High Court's quashing of the revised I&A charges demand, leaving that part of the High Court's order undisturbed. The appeals were thus allowed only in part, with no order as to costs.
When a law, rule, or official charge changes while a government approval is still pending, the party seeking approval generally has no vested right to be governed by the rates in force when they first applied: the rates applicable on the date the approval is finally granted will usually control, unless a specific statutory provision says otherwise.
