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.
The respondent held a 90-year government lease of a plot in Bhubaneswar granted in 1981. In 2003, the Odisha government introduced a scheme letting such leaseholders convert to freehold, on condition that lessees who had encroached on government land vacate the encroachment first. The respondent applied for conversion in 2003, but over the following decade government inspections repeatedly found he had encroached on adjoining government land (fencing it off as a garden), while he intermittently denied any encroachment; the dispute dragged on with conflicting site reports until 2014, when the state finally granted conversion conditional on a substantially higher fee reflecting 2014 rates rather than 2003 rates. The respondent challenged the fee computation in the Orissa High Court, which ruled in his favour and directed recomputation at the 2003 (application-date) rate; the State appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that merely filing a conversion application does not create a vested right to have it processed at that date's rates: an applicant must first satisfy the policy's conditions, including removing any encroachment, before becoming eligible for conversion at all. Reviewing the long correspondence trail, the Court found the respondent's claims of "no encroachment" were inconsistent and contradicted by the State's own site inspections over several years, and it was only in 2014 that the encroachment issue was finally resolved and the application could properly be processed. The Court also noted the respondent himself delayed challenging the State's inaction until 2015, so he could not then insist on 2003 rates. It therefore allowed the State's appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, dismissed the respondent's writ petition, and directed that conversion proceed at the rate computed as of the date the application was actually finally processed (2014), once he complied with the State's conditions.
When a government welfare/conversion scheme imposes eligibility conditions (such as "no encroachment"), merely applying does not lock in benefits at the application-date terms: an applicant who delays in satisfying those conditions, or in challenging administrative inaction, bears the consequence of the terms (like fee rates) prevailing when the conditions are finally met and the application is actually decided.
