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.
Flat purchasers in a Bangalore housing project were due to receive possession by 31 January 2014, but the developer failed to meet this deadline, obtaining the occupation certificate only in February 2016 and offering possession to buyers only from mid-2016 onward. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) found the developer in breach, awarded the buyers compensation and 6% annual interest on their deposits, but limited that interest award to the period ending 31 July 2016, even though many buyers still had not received possession. Both the flat purchasers (seeking interest beyond that cut-off date) and the developer (disputing the 6% interest rate itself) appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court rejected the developer's argument that interest should be capped by the agreement's meagre compensation clause (just Rs. 3 per sq. ft. per month, which the Court found grossly inadequate for a flat buyer in a city like Bangalore), holding that the NCDRC's consumer-protection jurisdiction to award just compensation could not be constrained by such a one-sided contractual term. It found the NCDRC's error lay in arbitrarily cutting off interest liability at 31 July 2016, when the developer's own evidence showed many buyers, out of 55 total, still had not been given possession, including some who were denied possession precisely because they had filed the consumer complaint, which the Court held was no valid justification. The Court therefore allowed the flat purchasers' appeal and dismissed the developer's appeals, directing that the 6% annual interest must continue running separately for each flat purchaser until the date possession is actually offered to that specific buyer, with the NCDRC to verify each buyer's possession date during execution.
A builder's own contractual penalty clause for delayed possession does not cap what a consumer forum can award as fair compensation, and interest for delay must run individually for each buyer until that buyer actually receives possession: a builder cannot rely on an arbitrary cut-off date, especially where possession was withheld because the buyer exercised their right to complain.
