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.
The Punjab government acquired about 14.49 acres of land across nine villages, including the appellant's land in village Bhago Majra, for building the Satluj-Yamuna canal. A Reference Court enhanced the compensation initially fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, and the landowner then appealed to the High Court for a further increase. The High Court, applying rates it had set in a separate "lead" case (Hari Singh v. State of Punjab) for landowners across all nine villages, enhanced the compensation for Bhago Majra land but at a lower rate than some other villages, and the landowner appealed further to the Supreme Court seeking parity with the higher rates given elsewhere.
The Supreme Court examined the High Court's methodology in the Hari Singh judgment, which had fixed differential compensation rates for the nine villages based on each village's location, distance from Chandigarh, and land quality, with Bhago Majra receiving a 20% deduction relative to some higher-rated villages. The Court found this village-by-village, factor-based approach was sound and that the appellant had not shown any material evidence was ignored or that the High Court made any fundamental valuation error. Since all other landowners in Bhago Majra had already received compensation at the same uniform rate, the Court found no ground to further enhance the appellant's compensation and dismissed this appeal. Four connected appeals with materially identical facts were disposed of on the same reasoning, while one further connected appeal (a landowner who had belatedly sought a recall of an earlier dismissal) was allowed parity with the Hari Singh rate, since that landowner's land was also in Bhago Majra and had been inadvertently left out.
In land acquisition compensation disputes, courts will accept a reasoned, factor-based methodology (location, distance, quality) for fixing different compensation rates across villages in the same acquisition, and a landowner cannot claim parity with a higher-rated village merely by pointing to geographic proximity, without showing the valuation method itself was flawed.
