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.
Perry Kansagra (a Kenyan/British citizen) and Smriti Madan Kansagra (an Indian citizen) married in 2007 and had a son, Aditya, who ended up living in India with his mother while a guardianship dispute proceeded in the Delhi High Court and Family Court. As part of a court-ordered mediation attempt, a court-appointed Mediator and a child Counsellor interacted with the child and filed reports touching on his wellbeing and attachment to each parent. A Delhi High Court Division Bench initially held these reports could be considered by the Family Court, but on a review petition by the mother, a different Division Bench reversed that and held the reports must be disregarded as confidential mediation material. The father appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that while ordinary mediation communications between disputing parties are confidential and cannot be used against them, a child counsellor's or mediator's report specifically describing a child's wellbeing, behaviour, and relationship with each parent is different: it is a neutral, expert assessment meant to help the court determine the child's best interest under the parens patriae doctrine, not a disclosure of either parent's private settlement positions. The Court relied on Section 12 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which carves out an exception to confidentiality for exactly this kind of welfare-related information, and held it did not matter that the particular counsellor had not been formally appointed under Section 6, since there was no dispute about her competence and both parties and the High Court knew of her involvement. The Court therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's review judgment, and restored the earlier judgment holding that such reports can be taken into account by the Family Court while deciding the guardianship case on its merits.
In child custody and guardianship disputes, confidentiality rules that protect parents' settlement talks during mediation do not extend to a child welfare expert's independent assessment of the child: such reports exist precisely to help the court serve the child's best interests and can be placed before the deciding court, even though the underlying mediation itself failed.
