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 (homebuyers) had filed a consumer complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the developer, Jai Prakash Associates. While the case was pending, the new Consumer Protection Act, 2019 came into force on 20 July 2020, raising the pecuniary jurisdiction thresholds for the District, State and National Commissions. Relying on the new Act's higher thresholds, the NCDRC held that the appellants' case, which no longer met the NCDRC's enhanced pecuniary limit, had to be transferred to a lower forum, and rejected the appellants' review of that order. The homebuyers appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing their case, instituted under the old law, should continue before the forum where it was originally filed.
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed review of decades of precedent on when a change of forum/jurisdiction applies retrospectively versus prospectively, and examined the 2019 Act's transitional provisions (Sections 31, 45, 56, 107). It held that the 2019 Act contained no express or necessarily implied intention to transfer already-pending cases to new fora based on the revised pecuniary limits: the continuation of existing adjudicatory members in office under the transitional provisions indicated Parliament intended pending matters to continue where they were. The Court also reasoned that given the enormous backlog across consumer fora nationally (lakhs of pending cases), mass transfers would seriously dislocate consumers' interests, defeating the very welfare purpose of the legislation, and that the word "entertain" in the new Act's jurisdiction clauses applies only to complaints instituted after the 2019 Act commenced. It set aside the NCDRC's transfer order and review rejection, directed the National Commission to continue hearing the appellants' case, held that all complaints filed before 20 July 2020 under the 1986 Act stay in their original corresponding fora, and awarded costs of Rs. 2 lakh to the appellants.
When a new law changes jurisdictional thresholds, pending cases are not automatically uprooted and transferred to a different forum unless the statute clearly says so: consumers who filed complaints under the old consumer protection regime are entitled to have those cases continue and be decided where they were originally filed.
