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.
Land was acquired in Bhandara, Maharashtra for the Gosikhurd irrigation project, with a preliminary notification issued in 2011 and a final declaration in 2012 under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Before an award could be made, the 1894 Act was repealed and replaced by the 2013 Land Acquisition Act. An award was eventually passed in October 2014, but affected landowners challenged it before the Bombay High Court, arguing it was both time-barred and backdated, and the High Court quashed the award and held the acquisition had lapsed. The acquiring authority (the Executive Engineer for the Gosikhurd project) appealed to the Supreme Court.
The central legal question was which time limit applied to acquisitions "saved" under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act when no award had yet been made under the old law: the old Act's 2-year limit, or the new Act's 12-month limit. The Supreme Court held that the 2013 Act's 12-month period (Section 25) applies, running from 1 January 2014 (when the 2013 Act came into force), not the 1894 Act's 2-year period. It further held that any period during which a court's stay order inhibited the authorities from acting must be excluded from this calculation, applying the maxim that the law does not penalize a party for something made impossible by a court's own order. After excluding a 79-day period during which a High Court stay was in effect, the Court found the award (even if the exact date was in dispute) was validly made within time. The Court therefore set aside the High Court's judgment and held the land acquisition proceedings had not lapsed, while separately directing the State to inquire into allegations that officials had backdated the award.
When a law is repealed and replaced mid-way through a government process (like land acquisition), the new law's timelines generally govern unfinished steps, and any time lost to a court-ordered stay does not count against the government or affected parties when computing deadlines: a principle that cuts both ways and is useful for citizens awaiting compensation as much as for authorities completing acquisitions.
