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 real estate developer, IREO Grace Realtech, sold apartments in a Gurgaon housing project called "The Corridors" under agreements that promised possession within 42 months (plus a 180-day grace period) of the building plan approval, subject to force majeure. Years went by with long delays, some towers never even received the mandatory Occupation Certificate, while buyers continued paying instalments, many funded through bank loans. A batch of apartment buyers filed complaints before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which ruled in their favour and ordered refunds; the developer then appealed to the Supreme Court in this batch of eleven connected appeals.
The Supreme Court held that buyers cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession, and a construction agreement's one-sided clauses (e.g., clauses that let the developer terminate for any single default by the buyer while giving buyers only a delayed, interest-free route to exit) amount to an unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. For apartments where the Occupation Certificate had actually been obtained and possession lawfully offered, the buyers were held bound to take possession, with the developer only liable to pay delay compensation for the period of delay. For apartments where the Occupation Certificate was still not available even at the time of the judgment, the buyers were entitled to a full refund of all amounts paid, since they could not be forced to accept delayed possession or switch units. The Court fixed a uniform compensation rate of 9% simple interest per annum from the date the contractual timeline expired until repayment (12% if payment was further delayed), rejecting both the developer's token contractual compensation rate and the buyers' demand for 20% compounded interest as commercially unrealistic.
A homebuyer cannot be held indefinitely to a builder-buyer agreement when the developer fails to deliver possession or obtain the Occupation Certificate: they are entitled to walk away and get a refund with reasonable interest, and one-sided contract clauses that trap buyers while shielding developers will not be enforced by courts.
