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 South Delhi (originally recorded in the name of a company, M/s. Laxmichand Bhagaji Ltd.) had been acquired by the government in 1980 for the planned development of Delhi, and possession was taken over in 2005. The respondent, Asha Jain, claimed rights in the land through an Agreement to Sell dated 09.05.2005 and filed a writ petition arguing that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act because compensation had not been paid to the recorded owners. The Delhi High Court, relying on the then-existing precedent in Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, allowed the writ petition and declared the acquisition lapsed. DDA appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court allowed DDA's appeal and set aside the High Court's order. It held that the Pune Municipal Corporation judgment relied on by the High Court had since been overruled by a five-judge Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020), which clarified that acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) merely because compensation was not deposited in court, so long as possession had already been taken. Since possession of the land was admittedly taken in 2005, there was no lapse. Separately and independently, the Court held that the respondent was only a subsequent purchaser under an Agreement to Sell (which by itself confers no title), and settled law (including the DDA vs. Godfrey Phillips and Shiv Kumar precedents) holds that a subsequent purchaser has no legal standing to claim that acquisition proceedings have lapsed, only the original recorded owner would have such standing. On both grounds, the writ petition should never have succeeded.
A person who buys land only under an unregistered Agreement to Sell after it has already been acquired by the government does not acquire ownership rights and cannot later claim that the acquisition has "lapsed" for non-payment of compensation: that right belongs only to the original recorded landowner, and once possession has been taken by the authorities, non-payment of compensation alone does not revive or lapse the acquisition.
