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.
In 1981 the Bihar government sanctioned a merger of pay scales for Upper Division and Lower Division Assistants/Clerks, but only for posts that had two linked junior and senior scales. In 1990, the Principal of Ranchi Women's College (affiliated to Ranchi University) issued an order fixing higher, merged pay scales for several staff, including the appellants, who held posts like Typist, Counter Clerk, Routine Clerk and Store Keeper, expressly subject to the University's approval. The University later refused to approve this re-designation in 1995, reversing the benefit, and the appellants challenged that reversal; a Single Judge of the Patna High Court ruled in their favour in 2003, but a Division Bench reversed that ruling in 2010, holding the Principal had no power to grant the merged scale without the Vice Chancellor's sanction.
The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench, finding that the appellants' posts (Typist, Counter Clerk, Routine Clerk, Store Keeper) did not fall within the categories of Lower/Upper Division Assistants/Clerks for which the 1981 merger order applied, and that only the Vice Chancellor, not the College Principal, had authority to re-designate posts or grant revised pay scales under the Bihar State Universities Act. Since the Principal's 1990 order itself stated the benefit was conditional on University approval, and that approval was never granted, there was no vested right to the merged pay scale. However, invoking its Article 142 power (and following precedents like Shyam Babu Verma and Rafiq Masih), the Court held that the appellants, some of whom had already retired, should not be made to refund the extra pay they had drawn in good faith between 1990 and 1995 due to the authorities' own five-year delay in deciding the matter.
A pay benefit granted on a conditional or provisional basis by an authority lacking final sanctioning power can be lawfully withdrawn once the competent authority disapproves it, but the Supreme Court will often protect employees from having to refund money already paid in good faith when the delay in resolving the matter was not their fault.
