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.
The respondent was appointed as an Associate Professor on a contract basis in 2002 by the National Institute of Rural Development (an autonomous body under the Union Ministry of Rural Development), and he opted into the institute's Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) scheme. He was later given a contract appointment as Professor in 2007, again with CPF benefits recorded in his offer letter. In 2012, following a one-time regularisation exercise for contract academic staff, his post was formally regularised, but the regularisation order and its governing rules stated that regularised staff would only get the New Pension Scheme, not the older Pension-cum-Gratuity scheme. The respondent objected, seeking the old pension scheme instead, and the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Telangana High Court both ruled in his favour.
The Supreme Court held that under Rule 6 of the Institute's Regularisation Rules, employees regularised under that one-time scheme are entitled only to the New Pension Scheme, with a narrow exception for staff who were originally appointed to a regular (non-contract) post and only later moved to a contract academic role: a description that did not fit the respondent, since both his original and subsequent appointments were on contract. Even if that exception applied, it only preserves whichever provident-fund/pension option an employee had already chosen, not a right to switch schemes afterward, and the respondent had chosen CPF. The Court also held that a general Bye-law allowing pension-scheme options applies only to someone appointed on a regular basis, not to someone whose contract service was later "regularised" under the specific, later-framed Regularisation Rules, so the Tribunal and High Court were wrong to apply it. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal and High Court orders, but directed the Institute to repay the CPF amount the respondent had returned (with 8% interest if delayed beyond two months).
When an employee's contract service is regularised under a specific, later, one-time scheme, the terms of that scheme govern their pension entitlement: older, general service rules about switching pension options don't automatically override or apply on top of it.
