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.
A landowning firm had agreed, after decades of litigation over a land acquisition, to sell part of its land to a company at a price to be fixed by an arbitrator. In 1985 the arbitrator fixed the price, and this award became final after the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to it in 1994. The company then sought to "execute" that price-fixing award itself to force the landowner to hand over a registered sale deed and possession, rather than suing separately on the underlying sale agreement (a specific-performance suit the company had actually filed in 1996 but later withdrew unconditionally in 2006). Trial and High Court orders had both directed execution of the sale deed based on the award, which the landowner challenged before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the arbitrator's mandate, and therefore the award itself, was limited strictly to fixing the price of the land: it did not, and could not, create or confer any ownership right or direct execution of a sale deed. Since a court executing an award cannot go beyond what the award actually decided, directing execution of a sale deed based on a price-only award was legally impermissible; any such right could only have come from enforcing the separate sale agreement through a specific-performance suit, which the company itself had abandoned by unconditionally withdrawing its 1996 suit. The Court also noted the award was never registered as required for documents affecting rights in immovable property. It therefore quashed the High Court's order, allowed the appeal, but, "to put a quietus" to four decades of litigation, directed that money already deposited by the landowner as a litigation deposit, plus an additional Rs. 10 lakh, be paid to the company to cover its litigation costs.
An arbitration award can only be enforced to the exact extent of what it actually decides: if an arbitrator was asked only to fix a price, a court cannot stretch that award into ordering transfer of property; a separate claim (like a specific-performance suit) is needed to enforce the underlying contract, and abandoning that claim cannot be worked around by executing the award instead.
