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.
Yogendra Rathi sued Ghanshyam for eviction from a property in Shakarpur, Delhi, claiming ownership through an unregistered agreement to sell, a power of attorney, a possession memo, a payment receipt, and a "will" executed by Ghanshyam in his favour. Rathi said he had taken possession under the agreement but then let Ghanshyam occupy part of the premises as a licensee for three months, and that Ghanshyam refused to vacate even after the licence was terminated. All three courts below (trial court, first appellate court, and the High Court in second appeal) ruled in Rathi's favour, and Ghanshyam appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Court held that an agreement to sell is not a title document and, by itself under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, does not transfer ownership: a practice of treating sale agreements, powers of attorney and wills as substitutes for a registered sale deed has no legal basis (reaffirming Suraj Lamp & Industries vs. State of Haryana). However, since Rathi had paid full consideration, taken possession, and the documents were found genuine (not fraudulent), he had acquired a protected "possessory title" under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, which cannot be disturbed by the transferor. The power of attorney was held meaningless since no sale deed was ever executed under it, and the "will" was irrelevant since a will only takes effect on the death of its maker, which had not occurred. Since Ghanshyam had since occupied only as a licensee whose licence was validly terminated, he had no continuing right to remain, and the appeal was dismissed with the eviction decree upheld.
An agreement to sell, general power of attorney, or will does not by itself transfer ownership of immovable property under Indian law, only a registered sale deed does, but a buyer who has paid the full price and taken possession under such an agreement still gets a protected possessory right that the seller cannot later disturb.
