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.
A woman's in-laws (her husband's parents) filed an application under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to evict her and her minor daughter from a house, after her marriage had broken down amid dowry-harassment allegations and a pending divorce. The property had originally been bought by her husband shortly before the marriage, later sold to his father, and then gifted to his mother: transfers the woman alleged were designed to strip her of any claim to the house. Authorities under the Senior Citizens Act, and then the Karnataka High Court, ordered her eviction, holding her remedy lay only against her husband, not the in-laws who now owned the house.
The Supreme Court held that the summary eviction power under the Senior Citizens Act cannot be used to defeat a woman's independent right to reside in a "shared household" under Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, even if she has no ownership title in that property and even if the current owners are her in-laws rather than her husband. Both laws serve important but different protective purposes, one for senior citizens, one for women facing domestic violence, and must be harmoniously read rather than one automatically overriding the other via its non-obstante (override) clause. The Court set aside the eviction order, left it open to the respondents to separately pursue only monetary maintenance adjustments under the Senior Citizens Act, directed restoration of the house's electricity connection, and, using its special Article 142 powers, barred the family from dispossessing the appellant or alienating the property for one year so she could pursue her Domestic Violence Act remedies.
A daughter-in-law's right to live in her matrimonial home under the Domestic Violence Act cannot simply be bypassed by routing an eviction through the faster, summary procedure of the Senior Citizens Act: courts must weigh both sets of rights together rather than letting one law silently defeat the other.
