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.
Seema (Sima) Sarkar was the Pramukh (head) of the Little Andaman Panchayat Samiti, a six-member body consisting of five directly-elected members and one ex-officio member: the Member of Parliament representing the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. A no-confidence motion was moved against her, but at the scheduled special meeting only three of the five elected members turned up; the Executive Officer dissolved the meeting for want of the required quorum of four (two-thirds of all six members, including the MP). The mover of the no-confidence motion challenged this before the Calcutta High Court's Circuit Bench at Port Blair, arguing the MP should not count towards the Samiti's membership/quorum for a no-confidence vote. The Single Judge upheld the Executive Officer's view, but the Division Bench reversed it, holding the MP could not participate or be counted: Seema Sarkar then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats) Regulation, 1994 and its Rules expressly include the MP as an ex-officio member of the Panchayat Samiti with the right to participate and vote on a no-confidence motion, since the statute's definition of "total membership" for quorum purposes draws no distinction between directly-elected and ex-officio members. The Court rejected the argument (based on general common-law notions of representative democracy) that only directly-elected members should get a say in removing an elected Pramukh, holding that where a specific statute clearly includes ex-officio members in the quorum count, that statutory scheme prevails over generalized principles. Since only three of the required four members (two-thirds of six) were present, the meeting was rightly dissolved for want of quorum, and the no-confidence motion never validly proceeded. The Court set aside the Division Bench's ruling, restored the Executive Officer's original decision, declared all subsequent removal action "non est" (legally void), and directed Seema Sarkar's reinstatement as Pramukh for her remaining term.
When a specific statute defines who counts towards a body's "total membership" for quorum or voting purposes, that statutory definition controls, even an indirectly-appointed or ex-officio member (like an MP sitting on a local Panchayat body) must be counted and allowed to vote if the law says so, regardless of general arguments about what feels more "democratic."
