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.
Employees working as Junior Engineers (Civil) for the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB, now Punjab State Power Corporation) were given certain pay-scale benefits in 1989-1990 under office orders designed to address "stagnation" (employees stuck without promotion for years). A later 1990 office order upgraded 20% of Junior Engineer-II posts to a higher pay grade. The employees argued this upgradation order should have been published in the Official Gazette like a formal regulation, and that without such publication it couldn't lawfully reduce the higher pay scale they believed they were entitled to under the earlier orders. The High Court's Single Bench and then Division Bench ruled in favour of the employees, ordering the higher pay scale. The PSEB appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court distinguished between "promotion" (advancement to a higher post along with greater responsibilities, usually via selection) and "upgradation" (merely a higher pay scale for the same post and duties, without any selection process), citing its own recent precedent on this distinction. It held that the 1990 office order was a simple upgradation of pay, not a disguised promotion or a change to formal service conditions, and therefore did not need to be published in the Official Gazette under Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, since the Board already had Gazette-published Regulations (1965) authorizing it to fix pay scales from time to time. The Court also held that, under its own earlier ruling on this very PSEB scheme, the time-bound benefit only applies to someone who meets the qualifications for the higher post but simply cannot get it due to non-availability of vacancies, not a blanket right to the pay of the next two higher posts regardless of qualification. Since the employees' claim didn't fit that framework, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the PSEB's appeal.
Not every pay-related administrative order from a government employer needs formal Gazette publication: if the employer already has properly published regulations authorizing it to set and revise pay scales administratively, a simple upgradation order (as opposed to a formal change in promotion/service conditions) can validly be issued without separate Gazette notification.
