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 belonging to the respondent in a Delhi village had been acquired years earlier by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The respondent went to the Delhi High Court claiming the acquisition should be treated as having "lapsed" under Section 24(2) of the 2013 land acquisition law, arguing that neither physical possession of the land nor compensation had ever actually reached her. The DDA's position was that it had released the compensation amount to the Delhi government's Land & Building Department back in 2005, and that it had taken possession of most of the larger tract, except for portions under illegal encroachment by land-grabbers (including, the DDA said, the respondent herself). The High Court sided with the respondent and declared the acquisition lapsed, entitling her to fresh compensation under the newer 2013 law.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's ruling directly conflicted with a five-judge Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court itself (Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal), which had settled that a "lapse" under Section 24(2) requires that BOTH possession was not taken AND compensation was not paid, for five years or more before 2014. If either one happened, there is no lapse. Since the record showed the DDA had taken possession of the bulk of the land and released compensation funds to the government department for disbursal, there was no lapse. The Court also noted the High Court had failed to properly consider that actual physical possession of the remaining strip could not be taken only because of illegal encroachment, which does not amount to inaction by the authorities. The High Court's judgment was set aside and the respondent's writ petition was dismissed.
A landowner cannot claim their acquired land has "lapsed" back to them under the 2013 Act merely by pointing to one missing formality (like undisputed physical possession of every inch) if the government can show it substantially complied with either the possession or compensation requirement, both conditions must fail together for a lapse to occur.
