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.
In 1980, a company agreed to buy a plot of land in Chennai from a family, who were required to first obtain clearances including permission under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act. When the sellers failed to get this permission and did not go through with the sale, the company sued for specific performance (i.e., to compel the sale) in 1981. A single judge of the Madras High Court ruled in the company's favour in 1991, finding the sellers acted dishonestly and had no real excuse for not completing the sale. Decades of appeals followed, with a Division Bench of the High Court eventually reversing the single judge and dismissing the suit in 2013, prompting the buyer's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court restored the single judge's original 1991 decree in the buyer's favour. It held that the agreement did not make the sale conditional on obtaining Urban Land Ceiling permission, rather, that was the sellers' own obligation, and their failure to secure it could not be used as an excuse to escape the contract. The Court found the sellers had taken dishonest and shifting positions through the litigation, while the buyer had consistently remained ready and willing to pay and complete the purchase. Although decades had passed, the Court held that delay caused by the court process itself cannot be held against a plaintiff who filed within the limitation period, and ordered the buyer to pay an additional Rs.1.25 crore (which it had itself offered) to account for the passage of time, while directing that the sale finally go through.
If you are suing for specific performance of a contract and you file within the legal time limit and remain genuinely ready and willing to perform your side, delays caused by the litigation process itself (as opposed to delays caused by your own inaction) will not be held against you: courts can still order the sale to go through even decades later, sometimes with an adjustment for the passage of time.
