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.
The appellant's family had rented a safe-deposit locker at a Kolkata bank branch since the 1950s. In 1995 he discovered the bank had broken open his locker the previous year over an alleged unpaid rent dispute, even though he had already cleared the dues, and reallotted it to another customer without notice to him. When he finally accessed the locker's contents, he found only two of the seven gold ornaments he claimed to have deposited; the consumer fora (District Forum, State Commission and National Commission) agreed the bank was negligent in breaking open the locker, but held that resolving the factual dispute over exactly what and how much jewellery was inside required detailed evidence that only a civil court, not summary consumer proceedings, could examine.
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed survey of Indian and foreign case law on whether banks are "bailees" for locker contents, concluding that the law of bailment applies only where the bank had actual knowledge or entrustment of specific locker contents: a question of disputed fact in this case that must be decided by a civil court through full evidence, not by consumer forums. However, the Court held that independent of bailment, banks owe a separate, non-negotiable duty of care under consumer protection law to properly operate and secure the locker system itself (maintaining locker and key registers, giving notice before reallotment, following proper procedure before breaking open a locker, etc.), and this duty cannot be excluded by contract. Because the bank admitted it had wrongly broken open the locker without cause and without notifying the appellant for nearly a year, the Court found gross deficiency of service and awarded Rs. 5,00,000 compensation (to be recovered from the erring officers' salary if still in service, or from the bank if they had retired) plus Rs. 1,00,000 in litigation costs, while leaving the jewellery-value dispute to be pursued in a separate civil suit. The Court also laid down detailed binding guidelines for banks' locker management (registers, access logs, notice requirements, inventory procedures, etc.) and directed the RBI to frame comprehensive regulations within six months.
Even when a bank disclaims knowledge of a locker's exact contents, it is always separately and non-negotiably liable under consumer law for negligently mismanaging the locker facility itself (wrongful breaking-open, lack of notice, poor record-keeping); claims over the actual value of lost locker contents, however, must be proven through a full civil suit, not a summary consumer complaint.
