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 appellant, a seaman with the Shipping Corporation of India, was discharged in 2010 after being declared permanently unfit for sea service due to Dilated Cardiomyopathy (a heart condition reducing the heart's pumping capacity). He claimed 100% disability compensation under Clause 21 of the National Maritime Board Agreement, arguing his heart ailment was an "injury" suffered during employment, while the Shipping Corporation maintained he was only entitled to lower severance compensation under Clause 25 since there was no accidental injury linked to his sea duty. The Patna High Court had rejected his claim, agreeing that his condition, while disqualifying him from sea service, did not prevent him from doing other kinds of work.
The Supreme Court held that Clause 5.9.F(ii)'s 100% disability compensation applies only where unfitness results from an "injury whilst in employment," and this specific contractual term could not be stretched to cover a heart condition with no established causal link to the nine-month shipboard engagement. The Court also examined academic literature the appellant relied on and found it did not establish any seafaring-specific causal connection for his condition. It further held that Dilated Cardiomyopathy did not qualify as a "disability" under either the 1995 Persons with Disabilities Act or the 2016 Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, as it is not a specified physical, intellectual or sensory impairment under those statutes. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's view that only severance (not disability) compensation was payable.
Contractual compensation clauses must be read strictly according to their specific wording: a medical condition that ends a particular job but does not establish any proven causal link to the work itself, and is not a condition recognised in disability legislation, will not automatically qualify for the highest compensation tier.
