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.
10422 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.
A Pune factory decided to permanently close its manufacturing unit in 1990 and issued a closure notice under Section 25-FFA of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workers' trade union challenged the closure, arguing the factory employed more than 100 workers, which would trigger the stricter closure-compliance requirements of Chapter V-B of the Act. The Industrial Court initially agreed, finding 115 workers and declaring the closure illegal, but the Bombay High Court reversed this on a writ petition, finding only 99 workers (because 16 disputed employees' "worker" status was not adequately proved), meaning Chapter V-B's stricter requirements did not apply.
The Supreme Court held that whether a unit employed more or fewer than 100 workers is essentially a question of fact (or a mixed question of law and fact), and such findings are ordinarily binding on the Court in an appeal unless shown to be perverse or legally unsustainable. After examining the evidence itself, the Court agreed with the High Court that the union had failed to produce cogent evidence proving that 16 disputed employees qualified as "workers," so the total count of 99, below the 100-worker threshold for Chapter V-B, was correct, and the closure did not require compliance with that chapter. However, exercising its discretion for fairness, the Court directed that each of the roughly 16 remaining workers who had not yet accepted any compensation be paid a lump-sum amount of Rs. 2,50,000, to be deposited with the Industrial Court and disbursed after verification, while making clear this benefit did not extend to workers who had already accepted compensation.
The stronger statutory protections for workers in a factory closure (requiring government permission and specific compliance) apply only once the workforce crosses the 100-employee threshold, and disputes over which employees count as "workers" versus supervisors can be decisive: parties must bring solid evidence on headcount, as courts will not readily second-guess a High Court's factual findings on this point.
