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 plot of land in Calcutta passed through a long chain of claimed transfers before coming to M/s Orient Beverage Ltd. (OBL), which declared it as excess vacant land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. After the Competent Authority rejected OBL's request to retain the land, OBL surrendered it, and the State issued a final notification vesting the land in the State, which it later leased to Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals, which built a hospital there. Years later, descendants of an earlier claimed owner (the Mantosh family) filed a civil suit claiming title to the land and alleging the ceiling proceedings were conducted behind their backs; the Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the High Court's Division Bench decreed it in their favour, prompting appeals by the Competent Authority, the State, and Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's decree, and restored the Trial Court's dismissal of the suit. It held that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act is a complete, self-contained code that impliedly bars the jurisdiction of civil courts to question the validity of ceiling proceedings (such as the Section 10(3) vesting notification): any such challenge could only have been brought before the High Court under Article 226 or the Supreme Court under Article 136, not through an ordinary civil suit. The Court drew an analogy to similar implied-exclusion principles under the Land Acquisition Act. It also noted that the plaintiffs had never raised objections during the ceiling proceedings themselves, that the land had already vested in the State free of encumbrances, and that the situation had become practically irreversible since a hospital had been operating on the land for decades.
Where a special statute (like the Urban Land Ceiling Act) sets up its own complete procedure and remedies, an aggrieved person generally cannot bypass it by filing an ordinary civil suit years later: the proper route is a writ petition or appeal under the statute's own framework, and failing to object at the right stage can make a belated challenge both legally barred and practically futile.
