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.
The petitioner was admitted to the MBBS program at Kannur Medical College in 2016, paying over Rs 21 lakhs in fees, but the college's admissions (including hers) were repeatedly cancelled by Kerala's admission authorities for the college's non-compliance with centralised-counselling and NEET-related directions, a cancellation ultimately upheld through multiple rounds of litigation. Having lost an academic year, she secured admission elsewhere via NEET 2017 and sought a refund; her father, under financial pressure, executed documents unconditionally withdrawing an earlier complaint in exchange for a partial refund. She then filed this writ petition directly in the Supreme Court under Article 32 seeking compensation for the lost academic year, without disclosing the earlier withdrawal of her complaint in her petition.
The Supreme Court found the petitioner's non-disclosure of the withdrawal of her earlier complaint to be a serious lapse in the duty of full and candid disclosure ordinarily required in Article 32 proceedings, which would normally warrant dismissal. However, the Court declined to dismiss the petition, reasoning that justice should not be sacrificed to procedural rigor, especially given that a coordinate bench had already (in an August 2018 consent order affecting the same batch of 150 affected students) directed the college to pay double the fees to each affected student, with exact quantification left to the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee. Rather than itself quantifying damages, which could conflict with that pending Committee process, the Court held the petitioner was entitled to benefit from that same principle and disposed of her writ petition by directing the Committee to decide her claim within three months, keeping all rights and contentions open.
Litigants approaching the Supreme Court under Article 32 must make full and honest disclosure of all relevant facts, including prior settlements or withdrawn claims, concealment can be fatal to a petition, but courts may still grant practical relief (here, a specific timeline for an existing regulatory process to decide the claim) where dismissing outright would cause real hardship to someone who already suffered a genuine wrong.
