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.
Two advocates filed a public interest litigation in the Jammu and Kashmir High Court complaining that cinema halls in the State ban movie-goers from bringing their own food and water inside, forcing them to buy expensive "junk" food at the hall's own counters. In July 2018 the High Court agreed, holding that the State's Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1975 nowhere permit such a ban and that it violates the right to choice of food and good health under Article 21; it directed all cinema owners in the State not to stop viewers from carrying their own food and water. K.C. Theatre and other cinema owners appealed to the Supreme Court; similar petitions pending in the Delhi and Bombay High Courts were transferred and heard together.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's direction. It held that running a cinema is a business protected by Article 19(1)(g), and since neither the 1975 Rules nor any other law requires theatre owners to permit outside food, the High Court had overstepped its Article 226 jurisdiction by inventing such an obligation: writ power must be exercised consistently with the legislative scheme, not to rewrite it. A cinema hall is private property; the owner reserves the right of admission and may fix terms of entry so long as they do not offend public interest, safety or welfare, and a no-outside-food rule (like a restaurant not letting customers bring their own meals, or concerts and museums restricting what patrons do) is a legitimate commercial choice to boost food-and-beverage revenue. Viewers are not compelled to buy anything once inside, so their right to choose food is not infringed; and applying the "unequal bargaining power" test from Central Inland Water Transport v. Brojo Nath Ganguly, the Court found this condition is not unfair, unreasonable or unconscionable. The Court recorded the theatres' assurances that free hygienic drinking water is provided and that reasonable food for infants is allowed, and requested owners to consider case-by-case requests from viewers with medical dietary restrictions. The transferred Delhi and Bombay petitions were dismissed.
A private business may set its own conditions of entry, including a ban on outside food, unless a statute says otherwise, and courts cannot use writ jurisdiction to impose obligations the law itself does not create. Consumers unhappy with such terms may choose not to patronise the business, or sue for a concrete loss, but cannot demand that a High Court legislate new rules for the industry.
