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.
9257 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.
The dispute concerned a Mumbai plot (Worli) that the appellant's predecessor, Lullu Vas, had sought on lease from the Municipal Corporation in 1945, while the land was already encroached upon by slum dwellers. Over decades, the slum was regularised and a rehabilitation scheme was sanctioned with a private developer, leading to a tangled series of conflicting orders by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, the High-Power Committee and the Municipal Corporation about whether Lullu Vas's heirs held valid leasehold rights. The Bombay High Court eventually set aside the High-Power Committee's order that had favoured the appellants and allowed the redevelopment scheme to proceed, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court; a related civil suit on the same lease dispute was still pending in the trial court, and the appellants had also filed a contempt petition.
The Supreme Court held that since the appellants' underlying rights as lessees had not yet been finally adjudicated in the pending civil suit, the matter at this stage turned on "balance of convenience," which favoured allowing the redevelopment scheme to continue given the larger public interest in completing slum rehabilitation. The Court found no material to quantify any damages the appellants might suffer and declined to restrain the developer from dealing with the free saleable area, noting the developer was only performing its contractual obligations. It granted the appellants liberty to pursue appropriate relief (including impleading necessary parties) before the trial court in the pending suit, and set aside any High Court observations that could prejudice the merits of that pending trial. The appeal was disposed of in these terms, and as a consequence the connected Contempt Petition was also disposed of without separate orders.
Courts will generally let a public redevelopment/rehabilitation project proceed on "balance of convenience" grounds when the underlying property right is still being litigated elsewhere, while expressly preserving the litigant's right to seek full relief, including damages, once that pending trial is decided.
