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 (a builder) was granted exemption under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 to construct tenements on two plots, on condition that 20% of the built-up area (ultimately 14 tenements) be handed over to government nominees from weaker sections. He developed only one of the two plots, handed over just seven tenements, and relied on a "No Objection Certificate" to argue his obligation was complete, while also arguing that a later development agreement shifted liability for the shortfall onto the builders he had brought in. The competent authority instead of withdrawing the exemption for breach, raised a demand of over Rs 51 lakh (market value of the remaining seven tenements) as arrears of land revenue, which was upheld by the High Court.
The Supreme Court agreed that the appellant had breached the conditions of the composite exemption and that the "No Objection Certificate" was conditional, not absolute, and could not absolve him; it also rejected his attempt to shift liability to the builders, since he was the applicant who obtained the exemption and gave the relevant undertakings. However, on the pure legal question of remedy, the Court held that the Urban Land Ceiling Act only empowered authorities to withdraw the exemption (with consequences under the Act) or prosecute for breach under Section 38(4): it gave the competent authority no statutory power to instead demand the cash market value of undelivered tenements as "arrears of land revenue." Since this demand fell outside the Act's actual powers, it was unsustainable and arbitrary, regardless of the undisputed breach, and the appeal was allowed.
A government authority can only recover dues or impose consequences using the specific powers a statute actually grants it, even where a citizen has clearly broken the conditions of a government order, authorities cannot invent new remedies (like a cash demand) that the law never provided for.
