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.
Giridhar was appointed as a Lecturer in 1989 against a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category, since no ST candidate was available despite repeated advertisements over several years, as permitted under a 1990 Government Resolution that required such posts to eventually be "de-reserved" if no reserved-category candidate came forward. He made repeated representations from 1997 onward seeking de-reservation and full seniority/pay benefits from his original 1989 appointment date, but authorities delayed acting, and he only filed a court case in 2011 after being told by government circulars not to approach courts without first exhausting the representation process. The Bombay High Court eventually agreed he was entitled to benefits from his original appointment date in principle, but restricted the monetary arrears to only the three years preceding his 2011 petition (i.e., from 03.07.2008), and he appealed that restriction to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that monetary benefits/arrears can only be restricted for a period of delay that is actually attributable to the employee, and found that here the delay was not Giridhar's fault: he had been making representations since 1997 and was explicitly discouraged by government circulars from going straight to court without exhausting the representation process first. The Court also rejected the State's claim that the High Court's restriction was based on a "consent" by Giridhar's counsel, finding no such concession was actually made. Since the State and university authorities themselves had delayed acting on his legitimate claim for de-reservation under their own 1990 policy, the Court held he was entitled to all monetary benefits and arrears calculated from his original appointment date of 26.12.1989, not merely from 2008. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's restriction was set aside, and the respondents were directed to pay all consequential benefits within three months.
When a government employee's delay in approaching court is caused by the government's own rules requiring exhaustion of internal representations first (or by the authorities' own slow response to legitimate claims), that delay cannot later be held against the employee to cut down the back-pay or benefits they are entitled to.
