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.
10422 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.
Over 800 slum dwellers in Santacruz, Mumbai, who had themselves become owners of the land through a cooperative society, appointed Susme Builders in 1986 to redevelop the slum and rehouse them, but more than three decades later the project remained largely unbuilt despite multiple revised agreements. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) eventually cancelled Susme's appointment as developer for delay, and a rival developer, J.G. Developers, also entered the picture claiming consent of the slum dwellers. The Supreme Court had earlier directed a retired judge, Justice B.N. Srikrishna, to determine which developer actually had the mandatory 70% consent of slum dwellers, and this appeal by Susme challenged the SRA's cancellation of its rights and the findings against it.
The Court held that neither Susme nor J.G. Developers had established the requisite 70% consent of slum dwellers needed to run the rehabilitation scheme: Susme because of this failure and its own responsibility for decades of delay, and J.G. Developers because it had obtained consent through a false promise of a larger flat, making its agreements with slum dwellers legally unconscionable and unenforceable. While the Court set aside one narrow part of the Bombay High Court's reasoning (that Susme had been given fair notice on the 70% consent issue specifically), it upheld the SRA's cancellation of Susme's development rights on the independently sufficient ground of delay, and held that Susme was not entitled to any relief. Since both rival developers were disqualified and the slum dwellers' decades-long ordeal could not be allowed to continue, the Court invoked its Article 142 power to do complete justice and issued detailed directions for a fresh, transparent tender process: the SRA was to invite proposals from reputed developers within three weeks, evaluate them on terms no worse than Susme's last offer, require a Rs. 200 crore bank guarantee from the successful bidder, and complete rehabilitation within two years of plan sanction, with the matter to be monitored through further status reports.
A developer appointed to carry out a slum rehabilitation scheme can permanently lose its rights if it fails to prove the legally required level of resident consent and is responsible for prolonged delay, and courts can use their constitutional power to do complete justice to order a fresh, closely supervised process rather than leave vulnerable residents without a remedy.
