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.
Deepak, a young assistant teacher travelling as a bus passenger, died after a truck collided head-on with the bus. His parents claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the truck owner and insurer. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found the truck driver rash and negligent, accepted that Deepak (then on a temporary/contract teaching post) would likely have been made permanent and drawn a salary of about Rs 40,000 per month under the 6th Pay Commission, and awarded roughly Rs 61.55 lakh using a multiplier of 17. On the insurer's appeal, the High Court upheld the negligence finding but cut the multiplier to 7 (based on the advanced age of Deepak's parents rather than his own age) and reduced the compensation to about Rs 26.45 lakh; the insurer's own separate challenge to the High Court's judgment had already been dismissed by the Supreme Court earlier. The claimants (parents) then appealed against the reduced amount.
The Supreme Court held that, following the Constitution Bench ruling in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and the earlier judgment in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, the multiplier for compensation must be based on the age of the deceased (29 years, warranting a multiplier of 17), not the age of the dependent parents as the High Court had wrongly done. Since the insurer's own challenge to the income finding had already failed and could not be reopened, the Court accepted the income as determined by the High Court, added 50% for future prospects, deducted 50% for personal expenses (as the deceased was unmarried), and applied the correct multiplier of 17 to arrive at a total compensation of about Rs 61,90,000, carrying 9% annual interest from the date the claim was filed. The appeal was accordingly allowed, restoring compensation close to the original Tribunal award.
In motor accident death claims, the "multiplier" used to calculate future loss of income must be based on the age of the deceased person, not the age of their surviving dependents: courts must follow the standardized multiplier table laid down by the Supreme Court rather than improvising their own approach.
