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.
Land in Delhi was notified for acquisition in 1999 for a planned residential scheme, with the acquisition declaration following in 2000 and possession of the land recorded as taken soon after. The appellants purchased the same land in 2001, after the acquisition notification had already issued, from a person holding only a power-of-attorney/agreement-to-sell/will from the original owners, not a registered, perfected title. After an award for compensation was passed in 2002, the appellants claimed they remained in physical possession, that an unauthorized colony later came up on the land, and that since the government never took actual physical possession, the acquisition had "lapsed" under the newer 2013 land acquisition law, entitling them to relief. The Delhi High Court rejected their writ petition, and they appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that a person who purchases land after a Section 4 acquisition notification has already been issued cannot acquire valid title against the State, since such a sale is void as against the acquisition, following its own earlier three-judge bench precedents, and declining to refer the matter to a larger bench despite the appellants' reliance on a conflicting two-judge ruling (the Manav Dharam Trust case). The Court also found the purchasers' claims internally contradictory, they simultaneously argued the land was part of an "unauthorized" colony while also claiming lawful possession, and noted their seller's own title derived only from unregistered power-of-attorney/will transactions that could not legally transfer ownership. As the purchasers never acquired any recognized title, they could not invoke the lapsing provision of the 2013 Act, and the appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision.
Buying land after an official acquisition notification has already been published is legally risky: such a purchase does not give the buyer a valid title against the government, and relying on informal documents like power-of-attorney or unregistered agreements to sell (instead of a proper registered sale deed from a person with clear title) can leave a buyer with no enforceable rights at all.
