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 plaintiff sued for specific performance of a 1990 agreement to sell land that one Bale Venkataramanappa had entered into with him, after the seller's legal heirs refused to execute the sale deed. The land had originally been granted to the seller's family under a scheme with a statutory 15-year bar on its transfer (under Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act), and that bar had not yet expired when the agreement to sell was signed. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding the agreement void since it was made during the restricted period, but the first appellate court and the Karnataka High Court both reversed this and decreed the suit in the plaintiff's favour, partly because the defendants had never filed a written statement or contested the evidence.
The Supreme Court held that an agreement to sell land executed during the statutory non-alienation period is void and unenforceable, regardless of whether the restriction period later expires before the suit is filed, because the illegality exists at the moment the agreement is made. Importantly, the Court held that even though the defendants had not specifically pleaded this illegality as a defense, a court must take notice of an illegality appearing from the evidence on its own and refuse relief: no party can get judicial assistance to enforce an illegal bargain. Applying the principle that where both parties are equally complicit in an illegal transaction the law favours leaving the parties where they stand (rather than actively enforcing the illegal contract), the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment and the first appellate court's order, and restored the trial court's dismissal of the suit.
An agreement to sell land made while a government-imposed restriction on its transfer is still in force is void from the outset and cannot later be enforced through the courts, even if the restriction period expires before the lawsuit, and courts will refuse to enforce such illegal agreements even if the other side never specifically raises the illegality as a defense.
