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 appellant company entered into a 1998 agreement to sell about 100 grounds of land in Chennai for Rs. 5.5 crores, accompanied by a Power of Attorney authorizing the buyer to develop and sell the property. The appellant did not file an income tax return for Assessment Year 2004-05, and the Assessing Officer later discovered the sale agreement and a 2003 Memo of Compromise (under which the consideration was revised and paid through encashed cheques). Treating the entire consideration as capital gains, the tax authorities raised a best-judgment assessment, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The company's appeal was also rejected by the High Court, leading to this further appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that although the mere 1998 agreement to sell did not by itself satisfy the conditions for a deemed "transfer" under Section 2(47)(v) read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act (since the owner's rights to title and possession remained intact at that stage), the subsequent 2003 compromise deed changed the picture. Under that compromise, the bulk of the revised sale consideration had been received and all cheques were in fact encashed, extinguishing the appellant's ownership rights in substance. The Court held this fell within Section 2(47)(ii) and (vi) of the Income Tax Act, provisions that capture any transaction, including one not completed under the general law, that in substance enables enjoyment of immovable property as if transferred, and on this basis (though not entirely for the High Court's stated reasons) dismissed the appeal, upholding the capital gains tax liability.
For income tax purposes, a "transfer" of property can be found even without a formal, legally completed sale: if payments are actually received and the seller's real control and ownership benefits are effectively given up (as evidenced by a later settlement/compromise), the tax law will treat that as a taxable transfer in substance.
