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.
The appellants purchased a plot of land in Alipore, Kolkata in 1974 and applied for permission to construct a building. Before construction could be approved, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 came into force, capping how much "vacant land" a person could hold in an urban area. The State authorities declared most of the appellants' land (2929 out of 3429 sq.m.) as "excess vacant land" liable to be taken over by the government, rejecting the appellants' argument that a large portion of the plot could not legally be built upon under municipal building regulations and should therefore be excluded from the definition of "vacant land."
The core legal question was how to interpret Section 2(q)(i) of the Ceiling Act, which excludes from "vacant land" any land where construction is "not permissible" under building regulations. The Court traced a long and conflicting line of its own precedents: State of U.P. v. L.J. Jhonson, Meera Gupta, Angoori Devi, and State of Maharashtra v. B.E. Billimoria, which had taken inconsistent positions on whether land where only partial construction is allowed (e.g., only 50% of a plot) can be excluded under this provision. Rather than resolving the appellants' case on merits, the Court found the conflict between these precedents so significant and unresolved (a prior five-judge reference on the same question had become infructuous due to repeal of the Act) that it referred the matter to a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court for an authoritative decision, without deciding the outcome of this particular appeal.
Not every Supreme Court hearing ends in a final verdict. Where the Court's own past decisions genuinely conflict on a point of law, the correct course is to refer the question to a larger bench rather than pick a side, so litigants sometimes must wait longer for a definitive answer that resolves the law for everyone, not just their own case.
