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.
This was a lead/illustrative judgment deciding a large batch of appeals by the Union of India and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) against a Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling. Land belonging to Tarsem Singh and others had been acquired in 2004-05 for widening National Highway No.1-A in Punjab; an arbitrator fixed enhanced compensation but, because the National Highways Act (unlike the Land Acquisition Act) does not provide for solatium or additional interest, none was awarded. The High Court had held that denying solatium and interest to NH Act land-owners, while such benefits are available under the Land Acquisition Act, was discriminatory, and struck down Section 3J of the NH Act to that extent, prompting the Union's appeal.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's conclusion, holding that there was no rational basis to deny owners whose land is acquired under the National Highways Act the same solatium (under Section 23(1A) and (2)) and interest (under the proviso to Section 28) that owners get under the Land Acquisition Act, since both statutes serve the same purpose of compulsorily acquiring private land for public use. It declared that these Land Acquisition Act provisions on solatium and interest would now apply to acquisitions under the National Highways Act as well, and held Section 3J unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 to that extent. Applying this ruling to the facts of the lead case itself, the Union of India's specific appeal (arising from SLP(C) No. 9599/2019, concerning Tarsem Singh's land) was dismissed; the judgment then went on to individually dispose of each of the many connected appeals in the batch based on which of eleven specific grounds had or had not actually been raised and argued below.
Landowners whose property is acquired for national highways are constitutionally entitled to the same solatium and interest benefits available to landowners under the general Land Acquisition Act: the government cannot pay less to one group of displaced owners than another for materially similar compulsory acquisitions.
