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 original defendant (seller) agreed in January 2004 to sell land in Punjab to the plaintiff for Rs 1,40,000, with Rs 69,500 paid as earnest money, but then sold the same land to the appellant (a second buyer) under a registered sale deed in June 2004 before the plaintiff's payment deadline. The plaintiff sued for specific performance and, alternatively, for a refund with damages. After an ex parte decree against the second buyer was eventually set aside by the Supreme Court in an earlier round (on payment of costs), the suit proceeded, and the trial court, first appellate court and High Court all ordered specific performance in the plaintiff's favour, directing possession be transferred to him.
The Supreme Court found that the lower courts had wrongly concluded the plaintiff was "ready and willing" to complete the purchase, since he had paid only the earnest money by the agreed date and deposited the balance sale price years later, only after the suit was first decreed: this fell short of proving genuine readiness and willingness, a mandatory requirement for specific performance. The Court also held that the lower courts' finding that the second buyer "connived" with the seller was based on assumption rather than evidence, especially since the second buyer had purchased under a registered deed and taken possession. Because specific performance could not be granted, but the property had meanwhile appreciated significantly in value and the second buyer had benefited from it, the Court modified the remedy: instead of transferring the land, it directed the second buyer to pay the plaintiff Rs 3,50,000 (inclusive of the original earnest money) within three months, with 12% interest if delayed, while the plaintiff could withdraw his own deposited funds.
Specific performance (forcing a sale through) is a discretionary remedy that requires the buyer to actually prove they were ready and able to pay on time: if that proof is weak, courts can instead order fair monetary compensation, taking into account any increase in the property's value, rather than transferring the property itself.
