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.
NOIDA had allotted hotel plots in 2006-07 at a concessional rate, which was later challenged, cancelled, and restored through litigation culminating in a 2011 Supreme Court judgment (ITC Ltd. v. State of U.P.) that gave allottees the option to retain their leases by paying an enhanced premium of Rs. 70,000 per sq. metre. The petitioner (lead case among several similarly placed hotel-plot allottees) paid the enhanced premium instalments but NOIDA did not execute the promised supplementary lease deeds, leading the allottees to file contempt petitions alleging NOIDA had disobeyed the 2011 directions. During the contempt proceedings, the Court in 2019 offered the parties two options, pay up all dues and get the supplementary lease deed, or surrender the plots for resale with a refund, and the petitioners opted for the second (surrender) option, but disputes arose over how much of the deposited money NOIDA was bound to refund and at what interest.
The Court worked out a detailed, modified formula for the "Second Option": allottees surrendering their plots would get back their deposited premium in full, but only after NOIDA resold the plots; any shortfall against a notional base price of Rs. 1,05,000 per sq. metre would be deducted from the premium refund, and the balance (lease rent and interest components) would be paid only out of resale proceeds exceeding that base price, ensuring NOIDA always recovered at least Rs. 1,05,000 per sq. metre. Petitioners were given two weeks to opt in by affidavit, after which NOIDA would compute amounts due, auction the plots within three months, and pay the petitioners from the sale proceeds; those not exercising the option, or not handing over possession in time, would be treated as having chosen the "First Option" (pay dues and get the lease) instead. The Court clarified that although the contempt petitions were technically limited to examining disobedience of its earlier order, it used the occasion to craft a practical commercial settlement serving both the allottees' and NOIDA's (and the public) interest, and closed the contempt petitions on these terms without a finding of contempt.
Contempt jurisdiction can be used by the Supreme Court not just to punish disobedience but to pragmatically resolve a decade-long execution stalemate between a public authority and private allottees, and a party seeking to exit a government land allotment should expect refunds to be structured so that the authority recovers at least the land's fair resale value first.
