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.
A company under liquidation had its entire industrial unit (land, buildings, civil works, plant, machinery and current assets) sold at auction for Rs. 8.35 crores as one consolidated package, later conveyed to Dankuni Steels Ltd. through a court-ordered sale deed. When presenting the sale deed for registration, Dankuni Steels declared its value as only about Rs. 1.01 crore, covering just the land, buildings and civil works, and sought a further 50% stamp-duty exemption meant for industrial units. The registration authorities (the Sub Registrar and District Registrar) held that since the sale deed's own preamble recorded Rs. 8.35 crores as the price for the whole package including plant and machinery, stamp duty had to be computed on that full value, not the reduced figure. The dispute wound through the High Court's single judge and then a Division Bench, which sided with the buyer, reasoning the authorities could not force registration/duty on plant and machinery the buyer wasn't seeking to register.
The Supreme Court, aided by an amicus curiae appointed to represent the largely unopposed dispute, held that the Division Bench erred by ignoring the sale deed's own preamble, which unambiguously fixed Rs. 8.35 crores as the price for the entire bundle of assets: artificially carving out a lower value for only the land and building was an attempt to reduce the stamp duty payable in law. Applying Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act and precedent on what counts as "immovable property," the Court held that plant and machinery permanently embedded in the earth forms part of what was conveyed along with the land, and its value must be included when assessing stamp duty: registration authorities are empowered to look behind an artificially split instrument to the real underlying transaction. The Court restored the single judge's order (with a modification concerning a stamp-duty exemption claim) and directed the registration authority to properly ascertain the value of the embedded plant and machinery and decide the exemption question afresh in accordance with law.
Parties cannot escape stamp duty by artificially splitting one composite property sale into a "registered" low-value part and an "unregistered" high-value part: the tax authorities can look at the real substance and total value of the transaction as recorded in the document itself, especially machinery permanently attached to land, which counts as immovable property for stamp duty purposes.
