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.
A group of real estate developers in Uttar Pradesh failed to hand over possession of flats/plots to home buyers as promised in their agreements. The home buyers filed complaints before the UP Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) under the newly enacted RERA Act, 2016, and a single member of the Authority ordered the developers to refund the buyers' money with interest. The developers challenged this before the Allahabad High Court, arguing that a single member of the Authority had no jurisdiction to pass such orders, and separately challenging a RERA Act provision that requires a developer to deposit a percentage of the disputed amount before it can even appeal. The High Court rejected their challenges, and the developers brought this batch of appeals to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined RERA's objects: created to bring accountability, transparency and a fast dispute-resolution mechanism to a previously unregulated real estate sector plagued by delays and fraud. It held that a single member of the Regulatory Authority does validly have jurisdiction to decide refund claims under Section 18 of the Act. It also upheld the constitutional validity of the pre-deposit condition for filing an appeal under Section 43(5), holding that the right of appeal is purely a creature of statute (not an absolute or natural right), and a pre-deposit requirement protecting the home buyer's already-determined refund is a reasonable, non-arbitrary condition, not a violation of the right to equality or to carry on business. On a further technical question, the Court clarified that the "principal amount" ordered to be refunded (not just the interest/penalty) can also be recovered as arrears of land revenue under Section 40(1) of the Act, reading the provision purposively to avoid defeating the Act's protective intent. The batch of appeals was dismissed, with developers given 30 days to file a proper appeal (with the required pre-deposit) if they wished to challenge the underlying refund orders on their merits.
Home buyers who have paid builders for flats or plots that were never delivered have a real, enforceable remedy through the RERA Authority to recover their money (including the principal amount, not just interest) as if it were a government revenue due, and builders cannot avoid this recovery mechanism through narrow technical readings of the law or by skipping the legally required pre-deposit before appealing.
