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.
In 2009, the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) replaced the old method of calculating property tax (based on the rent a property could reasonably fetch) with a new "Unit Area Method," which instead valued properties using fixed per-square-foot rates tied to location, age and use. Residents and resident associations in NDMC's area challenged these bye-laws in the Delhi High Court, arguing they exceeded what Parliament's law (which still spoke of taxing "annual rent") actually authorized NDMC to do. The High Court struck the bye-laws down as beyond NDMC's powers, and NDMC appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the Unit Area Method is not simply a way of calculating "annual rent" as required by Section 63 of the NDMC Act: it instead values property more like a tax on capital/rental value by a different formula, which NDMC's bye-law-making power did not authorize without Parliament amending the underlying Act. However, recognizing that the new method had been in use since 2009, that an interim Supreme Court order had let assessees pay tax under it in the meantime, and that about 95% of assessees had voluntarily accepted and paid under the new bye-laws, the Court used its special constitutional power (Article 142) to protect that large majority from having their past assessments reopened, while making clear that the original petitioners who had actually challenged the bye-laws would get the benefit of the High Court's ruling in their favour. The appeals were disposed of on these terms.
A government body's power to make subordinate rules (bye-laws) is limited to what its parent statute actually permits: it cannot use bye-laws to introduce a fundamentally different method than what the law itself specifies, even if the new method is arguably better; any such change needs the legislature to amend the law itself. The case also shows the Supreme Court can tailor practical, equitable relief (protecting those who already complied) even while striking down a rule as invalid.
