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 Jamnalal Bajaj Institute of Management Studies (JBIMS), a department of the University of Mumbai, had enjoyed "autonomous" status for five years (2014-2019), which let it fill 85% of its MBA/MMS seats from across the state on merit. When that five-year status lapsed just before the 2019-2020 admission cycle and JBIMS's renewal application was still pending, the Directorate of Technical Education treated it as "non-autonomous," reserving 70% of seats for University of Mumbai students only. Students from other Maharashtra universities, who would have ranked high enough to get in under the autonomous formula, challenged this before the Bombay High Court, which ruled in their favour; students who had already been admitted under the non-autonomous formula then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court found that the delay in processing JBIMS's renewal of autonomous status was due to lapses by both JBIMS and the University, but held it would be unjust to penalise the meritorious students who would have qualified under the long-standing autonomous admission formula because of that administrative delay. It therefore directed that, for the 2019-2020 academic year only, admissions be conducted as per the Bombay High Court's judgment (i.e., treating JBIMS as autonomous), with the process completed within two weeks. However, the Court expressly remitted the broader, unresolved legal questions, about the applicability of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 and UGC Regulations to JBIMS's autonomy status going forward, back to the High Court for full determination, clarifying that its own findings were only prima facie and for the limited purpose of not stalling that year's admissions.
Courts will often protect students' reliance on an existing, long-followed admission policy from being disrupted by an administrative lapse in renewing a status, even while leaving deeper, unresolved legal questions for proper adjudication rather than deciding them finally in an urgent interim-style hearing.
