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.
On 13 January 2023 this Bench had struck down as discriminatory the Explanation to Section 10(26AAA) of the Income Tax Act, which had excluded Indian-origin old settlers of Sikkim (and certain Sikkimese women who married non-Sikkimese men) from the income-tax exemption enjoyed by other Sikkimese. Afterwards, the petitioners, the Union of India and the State of Sikkim all filed applications pointing out that the judgment had quoted from the original, unamended writ petition, because none of the lawyers had told the Court about twenty-five amendments made to the petition back in 2013, and asked for certain phrases to be corrected.
The Court expressed displeasure that the applications were framed as if the Court had erred, when in fact counsel had failed in their duty to bring the amended pleadings to its notice. Nonetheless, in the interest of justice, it made two corrections to Justice Nagarathna's judgment: it deleted a sentence in paragraph 10(a) stating that no distinction had been drawn between the original Bhutia-Lepcha inhabitants and settlers of Nepali or Indian origin, and it deleted the words limiting the exemption to "the current financial year i.e. 1st April 2022 onwards" in paragraph 77, so that, since the Explanation was held discriminatory, the exemption benefit applies from the date the Explanation was inserted into the Act. The Court refused the Union's and State's request for a clarification about Article 371-F of the Constitution, saying that provision's validity or interpretation was never before it. It also clarified that the definition of "Sikkimese" and references to the repealed Sikkim Subjects Regulations 1961 are relevant only for the purposes of the income-tax exemption. The review petitions and all pending applications were disposed of, with the order to be read as part of the 13 January 2023 judgment.
When a law is struck down as discriminatory, the people it wrongly excluded are generally entitled to the benefit from the time the discrimination began, not just from the date of the judgment. Lawyers have a duty to place the correct, up-to-date pleadings before the Court, and a court will correct its own record where justice requires, even while calling out who caused the error.
