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.
7878 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.
Land in a Delhi village was acquired via a 2006 notification, a 2007 declaration, and a 2008 compensation award under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for a major road project (UER-II) connecting national highways around Delhi. The respondent, who claimed to have purchased a small plot on this land in 2005 but was not the recorded owner, filed a writ petition in 2016 arguing the acquisition had "lapsed" under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because neither possession had been taken nor compensation paid to her. The Delhi High Court agreed and held the acquisition lapsed; the DDA appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court applied its Constitution Bench ruling in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020), which held that satisfying either of the two conditions, taking possession OR paying/tendering compensation, is enough to save an acquisition from lapsing, and that depositing compensation in court (when ownership is disputed) counts as valid tender. Here, possession had been taken in 2012, and because the respondent's ownership was disputed (she was not the recorded owner), the compensation was validly deposited with the Reference Court in 2013. She had even admitted in a 2009 application that she knew of the acquisition and was not the recorded owner. Since at least one condition (in fact both) was satisfied, there was no lapse under Section 24(2), and once land vests in the State after acquisition, anyone continuing to hold it is legally a trespasser. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and dismissed the original writ petition.
Land acquisition does not automatically lapse just because compensation wasn't handed directly to a claimant. If the government took possession, or validly deposited disputed compensation in court because ownership was contested, the acquisition stands, and a landowner claiming a lapse must show inaction on both possession and payment.
