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 appellant's commercial premises in Calcutta had been requisitioned by the West Bengal Government in 1973 for use by the West Bengal Mineral Development and Trading Corporation Ltd. (WBMDTCL) and West Bengal Sugar Industries Development Corporation. A 1987 amendment to the state's requisition law required the State to release any requisitioned property within 25 years, which for this property meant release by 1998: yet the State never released it, and instead later tried to permanently acquire it under the Land Acquisition Act, including by invoking an "urgency" provision that bypasses the normal objection process. The owner challenged the acquisition notifications in the Calcutta High Court, which quashed the urgency-based acquisition, and the matter reached the Supreme Court both on the State's appeal against that quashing and on the owner's appeal over how compensation for the illegal occupation should be calculated.
The Supreme Court upheld the quashing of the land acquisition notification, holding that invoking the "urgency" clause to skip the normal objection/inquiry process requires a genuine, demonstrated urgency, and an acquisition that is otherwise flawed on the urgency ground cannot be salvaged by treating it as a valid ordinary acquisition for the remaining parties. On compensation, the Court agreed with the appellant that the special statutory provision for fixing compensation during requisition did not apply to the period after the 25-year requisition period lapsed, since the State's continued occupation after that date was simply unlawful, not requisition under the Act. Describing the State corporation's 22-year unlawful, uncompensated occupation of the premises as "a very disturbing feature," the Court appointed a retired High Court judge as arbitrator to assess damages for the illegal occupation, fixed a default compensation rate if the arbitrator was not engaged in time, and gave the occupying corporations four months to vacate the premises.
A government or public-sector body that continues to occupy private property after its legal right to do so (such as a requisition) has expired is liable to pay damages for that unlawful occupation, assessed on a different and often more demanding basis than the compensation that applied during the lawful period: "the State" does not get a free pass simply because it is a sovereign or quasi-sovereign body.
