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.
In 1981 Mohar Sai, himself a member of a Scheduled Tribe, bought a piece of land in Ambikapur (Sarguja, then in Madhya Pradesh) from another tribal man, Phool Chand Cherwa, by a registered sale deed. The defendants (Khora and others) said the purchase was really a "benami" deal: a sham in which Mohar Sai was only a front for his non-tribal employer, who could not lawfully buy tribal land. Revenue officers had earlier declared the sale fraudulent and benami under Section 170 of the Land Revenue Code, and those orders had become final by 1991. Mohar Sai then filed a civil suit in 1995 for a declaration of his title and an injunction; the trial court, the first appellate court and the Chhattisgarh High Court all ruled in his favour, so the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld all three courts below. The appellants' first argument was that the revenue authorities' findings amounted to res judicata (a matter already finally decided, which cannot be reopened). The Court rejected this: the power to examine whether a transaction is "spurious or benami" under Section 165(6c) of the Code is tied to granting or ratifying permissions under sub-sections (6a) and (6b), not to avoiding transfers under Section 170; moreover those sub-sections were inserted only on 15 April 1981, after the sale deed was executed. Since the buyer was himself a tribal, the question of whether he was merely the ostensible owner for a non-tribal was not something the revenue authorities could decide, so their findings could not bar the civil suit. The second argument, that Section 257 of the Code excludes civil court jurisdiction, also failed, because that bar covers only matters the revenue authorities are empowered to decide, and this benami question did not fall exclusively within their remit. The Court also noted the trial court's factual findings that Mohar Sai had built a house on the land where his sons live and keep cattle, and that the claim that Phool Chand was a drunk employee tricked into signing was disproved (he was actually a clerk at the Nagar Palika).
A decision by a revenue authority only blocks a later civil suit if that authority actually had the legal power to decide the specific question at issue; questions outside its remit remain open to the civil courts. Concurrent findings of fact by three courts will rarely be disturbed by the Supreme Court.
