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 had been acquired by the Delhi government under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector's records showed that possession of 19 out of 20 biswas of the land had been taken in 2009 (the remaining 1 biswa could not be taken because it was built-up), and that a compensation notice had been sent to the landowner by registered post, but since he did not come to collect it, the amount was deposited in the government's revenue deposit. The respondent later filed a writ petition claiming that, since compensation was never actually "paid" to him and part of the land's possession was never taken, the acquisition should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The Delhi High Court agreed and declared the acquisition lapsed, prompting the government's appeal.
The Supreme Court applied the settled law from its five-judge Constitution Bench ruling in Indore Development Authority, which held that Section 24(2)'s "or" between possession and compensation must be read as "nor"/"and", meaning a lapse occurs only if BOTH possession was not taken AND compensation was not paid for five years or more; if either one happened, there is no lapse. It also held that once compensation has been validly tendered under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, a landowner cannot claim lapse merely because he refused or failed to collect it. Applying this, since the major portion of the land's possession had already been taken through a possession proceeding in 2009, and compensation had been duly tendered by registered notice (with the landowner simply not showing up to collect it), there was no deemed lapse. The Court held the landowner could not benefit from his own conduct of not collecting the compensation, set aside the High Court's ruling, and dismissed the original writ petition.
A landowner cannot claim that a land acquisition has "lapsed" for non-payment of compensation if the government validly tendered the compensation and it was the landowner's own failure to collect it that led to its deposit elsewhere. The law does not let a party profit from their own inaction.
