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.
An original allottee booked a flat in a Noida housing project from builder Laureate, which was to be delivered within 36 months. When construction was delayed, she sold her rights in the flat to the respondent-purchaser, who then paid further instalments directly and informed the builder of the transfer. Possession was still not handed over (no occupancy certificate even by the time of the appeal), so the purchaser approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) seeking a full refund with interest; the NCDRC ruled in his favour, and Laureate appealed to the Supreme Court, partly challenging whether a subsequent purchaser (not the original allottee) was even entitled to this relief and interest.
The Supreme Court held that a subsequent purchaser who steps into an original allottee's shoes can validly maintain a consumer complaint and claim relief for the builder's delay, since consumer law is to be interpreted broadly in favour of genuine buyers and technicalities like privity of contract should not defeat legitimate claims. However, the Court also held that a purchaser who buys into an already-delayed project has some implied knowledge of the delay and cannot claim interest from the very beginning as if unaware of it; interest should instead run from when the builder acquired knowledge of the transfer to the new purchaser. Applying this, the Court modified the NCDRC's order to award interest at 9% per annum from April 2016 (when the builder was informed of the transfer), rather than from the original payment dates, and partly allowed the appeal on that limited point while upholding the refund-with-interest remedy in principle.
If you buy an already-booked flat from someone else (a "subsequent purchaser"), you can still sue the builder in consumer court for delay and seek a refund with interest, but the interest may only be calculated from the point the builder was told about your purchase, not from the original buyer's very first payment.
