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.
Builder Supertech constructed 15 residential towers (the "Emerald Court" project) in Noida under an approved plan that included open garden space in front of Tower 1. Years later, Supertech obtained revised sanctions from the Noida Authority to construct two additional towers, Apex and Ceyane (T-16 and T-17), on that very garden space, without the consent of the existing flat owners. The Residents' Welfare Association (RWA) challenged this before the Allahabad High Court, which ordered the two new towers demolished for violating minimum-distance building norms and fire-safety regulations. Supertech and some individual flat buyers appealed to the Supreme Court.
After a detailed, multi-year examination of building plans, fire-safety norms, and correspondence, the Supreme Court found that the construction of T-16 and T-17 violated mandatory minimum-distance requirements between buildings under the National Building Code and local byelaws, and that Supertech had advanced false arguments (that the towers formed a single "block" with Tower 1, and that the facing sides were "dead ends") to get around this, which were contradicted by the record. The Court also held that the builder needed, and never obtained, the consent of the existing flat owners before eliminating the promised garden area and nearly doubling the number of flats in the project, as required under UP apartment ownership law. The Court further found evidence of collusion between Noida Authority officials and the builder in approving the illegal plan. It upheld the demolition order, directing the towers be demolished within three months at the builder's own cost under the supervision of the Central Building Research Institute, with full refunds plus 12% annual interest to affected homebuyers and costs of Rs. 2 crore to the RWA.
Builders cannot unilaterally revise an approved building plan to add new towers at the cost of existing residents' promised open spaces and safety margins, doing so without the flat owners' consent, and in violation of building-distance and fire-safety norms, can result in court-ordered demolition of the illegal structure even years after construction, with the builder bearing the full cost.
