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.
9257 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.
NOIDA's board had recommended raising its employees' retirement age from 58 to 60, but the State of Uttar Pradesh's eventual approval in 2012 was made effective only prospectively (from the date of the government order), not retrospectively. Two NOIDA employees, who had already retired at 58 a month before the new order, sued to get the benefit of the higher retirement age retroactively back to 2002 (an earlier board resolution date) and sought full pay for the years they didn't work. The Allahabad High Court ruled in their favour, directing retrospective effect from 2002 and ordering back pay; NOIDA and the State appealed.
The Supreme Court held that deciding whether, and from what date, to raise a retirement age is a policy matter squarely within the executive's domain, not something a High Court can rewrite under judicial review. It found the High Court's reasoning factually wrong on two counts: an earlier court order had already left the effective date to the government's discretion and had attained finality unchallenged, and the 2012 government order responded to a fresh 2012 board recommendation, not the old 2002 one. The Court also rejected the employees' promissory estoppel argument, since NOIDA's board resolution was only a recommendation requiring government approval, not a binding promise. It restored the "no work, no pay" principle, since the employees had not actually worked during the disputed period and had already retired before any interim order in their favour was obtained. The appeals were allowed and the High Court's judgment set aside.
Courts exercising judicial review cannot substitute their own policy choice (such as the effective date of a service benefit) for that of the government, unless the government's decision is shown to be arbitrary or unconstitutional; and employees generally cannot claim pay for a period in which they did not actually work, absent a specific rule or interim court order protecting them.
