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.
DDA had allotted a commercial plot in Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi on a perpetual lease to Jindal Strips Limited (later respondent No.1) in 1993. The lease deed required the lessee to get DDA's prior written consent before any transfer, and to pay 50% of the "unearned increase" (the rise in the plot's value) if it did so. Jindal Strips underwent a corporate demerger approved by a Company Court, under which the plot's undertaking was transferred to a new company, Jindal Stainless/Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. (respondent No.2), without DDA's consent and without paying any unearned increase. When DDA later demanded 50% unearned increase and the respondents challenged this demand in the High Court, a Division Bench ruled in the respondents' favour, holding the demerger was not a "transfer" attracting the lease clause; DDA appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that a transfer of the leased property pursuant to a scheme of demerger sanctioned by a Company Court still qualifies as a "transfer" within the meaning of clause 6(a) of the lease deed, triggering the lessee's obligation to seek DDA's prior consent and pay 50% unearned increase. It rejected the argument that no consent or payment was needed merely because the same group of directors/shareholders controlled both the original lessee and the new transferee company, or because the transfer was without monetary consideration: the plain language of the lease clause applied regardless. The Court set aside the Division Bench's judgment and restored the Single Judge's order that had dismissed the writ petition and upheld DDA's demand, with no order as to costs.
A lease clause requiring payment on "transfer" of the leased property can apply even to transfers that happen through a court-approved corporate restructuring (like a demerger) rather than a straightforward sale, restructuring a company does not automatically exempt it from contractual obligations tied to ownership transfer of leased land.
