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.
10422 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 practising advocate, lived next door to the respondent, who ran a flour mill, oil mill and ice factory from his own residential premises. After the respondent installed a diesel generator set in 2003, the appellant complained that the resulting vibration cracked his house's walls and that the noise and air pollution harmed his family's health and disrupted his legal practice from home. Both parties filed competing civil suits for injunctions, and while the appellant's suit succeeded before the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the High Court of Allahabad reversed this in a second appeal, holding (among other things) that the appellant's suit was time-barred because the mill's operations had actually begun back in 1990.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred procedurally by entertaining a limitation plea for the first time in a second appeal, since no such issue had been raised or framed as a pure question of law at trial: it was, at best, a mixed question of law and fact that could not be raised that late. On the merits, the Court also found the High Court's reasoning flawed: the real cause of nuisance was the diesel generator set installed only in 2003, making the 2004 suit timely, and the lower courts' factual findings that the generator caused wall cracks and health-damaging pollution meant the nuisance was a continuing wrong, not a stale one. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the decree in the appellant's favour, with no order as to costs.
A plea of limitation that depends on disputed facts (a "mixed question of law and fact") generally cannot be raised for the first time in a second appeal if it was never raised or framed as an issue at trial; and nuisance caused by an ongoing activity (like continuous noise or pollution from machinery) is treated as a continuing wrong, so the limitation period runs from when that specific activity started, not from some earlier, unrelated point in time.
