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 respondent's land was acquired in 1991-92 for resettling people displaced by the Narmada Project, and a consent award fixing compensation was passed in 1993. The landowner later had a change of heart, refused to accept the compensation offered, and asked the authorities to release the land from acquisition, which was initially allowed in 1995. In 2009, the Assistant Commissioner cancelled that 1995 order and revived the original compensation order, and the landowner was again called upon to accept payment in 2010, but instead challenged the acquisition in the Gujarat High Court, which ruled that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act since neither compensation had been paid nor possession taken over all these years.
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court, applying the Constitution Bench ruling in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020). It held that a deemed lapse under Section 24(2) requires that the acquiring authority itself be at fault for failing to both pay compensation and take possession, but here, the compensation had been duly offered and the landowner himself had refused to accept it, and possession had been taken by drawing a panchnama (spot memorandum) at the time of the consent award, which the Indore Development Authority ruling recognizes as legally valid. Since a landowner who refuses tendered compensation cannot later claim the acquisition lapsed for non-payment, and possession had been validly taken on paper even though the landowner continued physically cultivating the land, neither of the two conditions for a deemed lapse was satisfied. The High Court's judgment quashing the acquisition was set aside, and the original 1993 consent award was restored, with no order as to costs.
A landowner who refuses compensation that was validly offered under a land acquisition award cannot later use that same refusal as a ground to claim the acquisition has lapsed: the "lapse" protection under Section 24(2) exists to penalize the government's inaction, not to reward a landowner's own refusal to accept payment.
