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.
Sevoke Properties leased a plot of land in Siliguri, West Bengal to the respondent electricity distribution company for a 15-year term starting in 1981, but the lease deed was never registered. After the lease period ended in 1996, Sevoke filed an eviction suit without first serving a formal notice to quit, relying instead on the fact that the lease term had simply expired. The trial court decreed eviction in Sevoke's favour in 2005, but the Calcutta High Court's Division Bench later reversed this, holding that because the lease was unregistered, the tenancy was legally only a month-to-month tenancy requiring a formal 15-day notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and since no such notice was served, the eviction suit itself was not maintainable.
The Supreme Court allowed Sevoke's appeal and restored the trial court's original eviction decree. It held that although the unregistered lease document's terms could not be used as evidence, the respondent's own written statement had expressly admitted it held the land for a fixed 15-year term from 1981 to 1996, and once that admitted fixed term expired, the respondent automatically became a "tenant at sufferance" (akin to a trespasser who once had lawful possession) rather than a month-to-month tenant, under Section 111(a) of the Transfer of Property Act. Since the tenancy ended automatically by efflux of time rather than through termination, no notice under Section 106 was legally required before suing for possession. The Court granted the tenant one year to vacate given its ongoing business operations on the land, with mesne profits (compensation for wrongful occupation) to be separately finalised.
If a tenant admits in writing (such as in court pleadings) that they occupied a property only for a specific, now-expired term, they cannot later insist on a formal eviction notice to avoid eviction, once a fixed-term lease simply runs out, the landlord does not need to serve additional notice to sue for possession.
