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.
Two connected appeals arose from the same road accident of 27 April 1994. In the first, the appellant Rahul Ganpatrao Sable, then 19 years old, suffered severe permanent injuries (including paraplegia and loss of bladder/bowel control) and sought enhanced compensation beyond what the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the Bombay High Court had awarded. In the second, the family of Ganpatrao Sakharam Sable, who died in the same accident while working as a college principal, sought enhancement of the compensation awarded to his dependents. No appeal was filed by the insurance company, so liability itself was not in dispute; only the quantum of compensation was before the Supreme Court.
For the injured appellant, the Court held that his combination of permanent disabilities (paraplegia, loss of bladder and bowel control) effectively caused 100% loss of earning capacity, not the 50% deduction applied by the High Court, and that no separate deduction for "uncertainties of life" should be made since the multiplier already accounts for this; it also corrected the multiplier to 18 (for his age) and awarded fresh amounts for attendant charges, future medical expenses, and loss of marriage prospects, besides raising the pain-and-suffering award. For the deceased's dependents, the Court accepted a higher proven monthly salary, added 15% for future prospects as mandated by the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi, reduced the personal-expenses deduction from one-third to one-fourth (since there were four dependents), and awarded separate, higher amounts for loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses instead of one lump sum. Both appeals were allowed and the compensation substantially enhanced.
Motor accident compensation must be calculated using the settled formulas from Sarla Verma and the Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi, including the correct multiplier by age, no double deduction for "uncertainties of life," a personal-expenses deduction that shrinks as the number of dependents grows, and separate (not lumped) awards for consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses, so claimants and their counsel should check each of these components individually rather than accepting a single composite figure.
