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 appellant, an Airman enrolled in the Indian Air Force in 2004 for a 20-year term, applied for and was selected to a Probationary Officer post at the Bank of India in 2010-11 without first completing the mandatory seven years of service or obtaining his unit's prior permission, in violation of a governing Air Force Order. After a tribunal initially granted him a provisional No Objection Certificate (NOC) and discharge, letting him join the bank in 2011, the Air Force authorities later formally rejected his NOC application on technical grounds (pay-scale non-equivalence and his trade's "critical manning" status) and cancelled his provisional discharge, ordering him to return to duty. Because he never received a clean discharge, the bank terminated his employment, and his challenge to the Armed Forces Tribunal's dismissal of his case reached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court rejected the appellant's argument that he had an unqualified fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to choose his employment and leave Air Force service at will, holding that Article 33 of the Constitution permits Parliament to restrict such rights for armed forces personnel, and that the Air Force Act, its rules, and Air Force Order 14/2008 validly impose service-completion and permission requirements tied to operational needs and trade criticality. However, invoking its special equitable power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court noted that nearly eight years had passed since the appellant left the force and that reinducting him at this stage would serve no purpose except subjecting him to disciplinary action. It therefore directed that a final NOC and discharge certificate be issued to him within three months, conditional on his depositing Rs. 3 lakh with the Union of India within two months: a practical, compromise resolution rather than either upholding his original right or forcing his return to service. The connected appeal raised no separate point and was disposed of in identical terms.
Members of the armed forces do not have an unrestricted constitutional right to quit for civilian employment mid-engagement, but where years have passed and practical realities make reinstatement pointless, the Supreme Court can use its special equitable powers to craft a fair resolution (here, a discharge conditioned on a monetary deposit) rather than mechanically enforcing the technical legal position on either side.
