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.
This arose from the split in the AIADMK party between the faction led by Edappadi K. Palaniswami (EPS) and the faction led by T.T.V. Dhinakaran (TTVD). The Election Commission had earlier ruled in favour of the EPS-led group's right to the party's name and "Two Leaves" symbol, a decision TTVD challenged in the Delhi High Court. While that writ petition was pending, a Single Judge allowed TTVD's group to use an interim name and symbol (such as "Pressure Cooker") for elections; the Supreme Court had kept that interim order in abeyance in March 2018 while directing the High Court to decide the main case quickly. When a fresh bye-election was notified in late 2018/early 2019, TTVD approached the Supreme Court again, since the High Court case was still undecided.
The Court held that it was not "functus officio" and could still entertain TTVD's application because it had expressly reserved liberty for parties to return if a fresh election was notified. On merits, it agreed with the High Court's Single Judge that, even though TTVD's group was not a separately registered and recognised political party, equitable considerations (and the Election Commission's own past practice in similar party-split disputes) justified giving it an interim common name and symbol while its claim to be the "real" AIADMK remained sub judice. The Court vacated its earlier order keeping the Single Judge's interim arrangement in abeyance, and directed that if the Delhi High Court did not finally decide the writ petition within four weeks, the Election Commission must implement the Single Judge's 9 March 2018 interim order for any upcoming bye-elections or Parliamentary elections.
Courts can grant interim, equity-based relief (such as a temporary party symbol) to a group whose claim to be a political party's "real" faction is still being litigated, so that ongoing elections are not rendered unfair while the underlying dispute is pending: interim relief does not require the applicant to have already won the final case.
