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.
Employees of Bihar State Beverages Corporation, all of whom had come to the Corporation on deputation/contract from other state boards and corporations (since the Corporation made no direct recruitment of its own), were denied the benefit of the 6th Pay Revision Committee scale even though the Corporation's own Board had resolved in 2010 to grant it. Acting on Finance Department advice, the Corporation later passed a 2012 resolution limiting these employees to the pay scale of their parent organisations. The employees' writ petitions were dismissed by a Single Judge but allowed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court, which quashed the 2012 resolution and directed the Corporation to apply "equal pay for equal work." The Corporation appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court, dismissing the Corporation's appeals. It held that since every employee of the Corporation, regardless of which parent body they came from, was doing the same or similar work, paying them differently based on their parent organisation's pay scale violated the principle of equal pay for equal work and Article 14. The Court also held that Rules 282-283 of the Bihar Service Code (governing deputation to "foreign service") do not cap a deputationist's pay at what they drew in their parent department; a higher rate is permissible. It further held that paying less than what was promised in the original recruitment advertisement amounted to an impermissible unilateral change in conditions of service. The Court clarified that employees get the 6th PRC scale only as long as they continue working with the Corporation; if repatriated, they revert to their parent organisation's pay scale.
An employer cannot rely on employees' differing "parent department" pay scales to justify unequal pay for identical work performed in the same organisation, doing so breaches Article 14's equal-pay guarantee, and promises made in a recruitment advertisement cannot later be unilaterally diluted.
