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.
An Assistant Registrar at a Delhi University-affiliated chest institute was dismissed from service by the institute's own Governing Body after disciplinary proceedings. He had earlier successfully challenged an identical dismissal, with courts holding that only the University's Executive Council (not the institute's Governing Body) had the power to institute disciplinary proceedings against him under the applicable service rules. Despite this, after a contempt case forced his reinstatement, the institute again terminated him: this time after the Executive Council passed a resolution retroactively claiming the Governing Body had always had disciplinary power since 1955. A Single Judge quashed this second termination too, and the institute appealed.
The Division Bench carefully examined the actual 1955 resolution the institute relied on and found it only empowered the Governing Body to appoint staff: it never granted disciplinary/dismissal powers, and no separate document ever delegated such power from the Executive Council. The 2017 resolution claiming otherwise was, the Court said, based on a "complete misreading" of the 1955 resolution. Since the rules in force at the time of the employee's appointment (1971 Service Rules) clearly vested disciplinary authority in the Executive Council alone, and no valid delegation to the Governing Body was ever shown, the second termination was equally invalid. The appeal was dismissed, and given that the employee had been dragged through litigation for about 12 years despite his original dismissal being set aside back in 2014, the Court imposed Rs. 50,000/- in costs on the institute.
An employer cannot cure a jurisdictional defect in a disciplinary action simply by passing a fresh resolution asserting it always had the power: the actual documents delegating authority must genuinely support that claim, and courts will scrutinise them closely, especially where an employee has already prevailed on the same point once before.
