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.
Dipti Deodhare joined DRDO in 1988 and rose to Scientist 'G', heading a robotics division at its Bengaluru centre. In 2018 she was selected by direct recruitment as Scientist 'H' at the National Technical Research Organization (NTRO), on one year's probation; as required for a move between government organisations, she gave a "technical resignation" from DRDO, which preserved her lien (her right to return) to her DRDO post. In February 2019, before her probation ended, the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet prematurely repatriated her to DRDO as Scientist 'G'. She reported to DRDO the next day, went on leave, later appeared for (and failed) DRDO's own Scientist 'H' promotion assessment, and then challenged the repatriation before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed her case. The Karnataka High Court reversed the Tribunal, directed that the NTRO order be treated as a "discharge simpliciter" and that all her terminal benefits be computed as if she had held the Scientist 'H' post.
The Supreme Court allowed NTRO's appeal and restored the Tribunal's order. It held that a technical resignation with a continuing lien exists for the employee's own protection: if a probationer in the new organisation is not confirmed or is relieved, she can return to her old post rather than lose her job entirely. Since her lien on the Scientist 'G' post continued, repatriating her there during probation was in line with the applicable DoPT office memoranda, and once she reported to DRDO, took leave as Scientist 'G' and even sat for DRDO's promotion board, she ceased to be an NTRO employee. The High Court's directions were self-contradictory, it could not simultaneously treat her as discharged from NTRO and order NTRO to pay her terminal benefits at Scientist 'H' pay including her DRDO years, and in any case a direct recruit who never completed probation cannot claim pension on that higher post under the CCS (Pension) Rules. To do complete justice, the Court allowed her to press her voluntary-retirement request before DRDO, which should be considered positively, but as Scientist 'G'.
A government employee who moves to another department on probation via a technical resignation keeps a safety net, the lien on the old post, but that safety net cuts both ways: if the new employer lets them go during probation, they return to the old post and grade, and cannot claim retirement benefits pegged to the higher post they never substantively held.
