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.
Govindan Raghavan booked a flat in Pioneer's "Araya Complex" project in Gurugram for over Rs. 4.83 crore under an Apartment Buyer's Agreement signed in 2012, which required the builder to apply for the Occupancy Certificate within 39 months of excavation (with a 180-day grace period), i.e., by around March 2016. The builder failed to meet this deadline and only obtained the Occupancy Certificate in July 2018, nearly two and a half years late, while the buyer, who had been servicing a bank loan for the flat and had since found an alternative property, filed a consumer complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) seeking a full refund with interest rather than possession. The NCDRC ruled in the buyer's favour, ordering a refund with interest, and the builder appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court dismissed the builder's appeals and upheld the NCDRC's order directing a full refund with 10.7% simple interest per annum. The Court held that the Apartment Buyer's Agreement's terms were "ex-facie one-sided, unfair, and unreasonable", since flat purchasers, who lack equal bargaining power with large builders and often have no real choice but to "sign on the dotted line," cannot be bound by heavily one-sided standard-form contracts, and incorporating such clauses itself amounts to an "unfair trade practice" under the Consumer Protection Act. Having failed to deliver the flat within the agreed time or any reasonable extension of it, the builder could not force the buyer to accept a much-delayed possession; the buyer was entitled to walk away and get his money back with reasonable interest instead.
A builder cannot rely on one-sided clauses buried in a standard flat-purchase agreement to escape responsibility for inordinate delay: if possession is delayed well beyond the promised (and any reasonable grace) period, a flat buyer has the right to exit the deal entirely and demand a full refund with interest rather than being forced to wait indefinitely.
