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.
After Jayant Shivram Salgaonkar died in 2013 leaving a will, a dispute arose among his legal heirs over fixed deposits and mutual fund investments for which certain family members had been named "nominees." The nominees (the appellants) argued that under Section 109A of the Companies Act, 1956 and the Depositories Act bye-laws, a valid nomination vested them with absolute beneficial ownership of the securities, excluding all other legal heirs, relying on an earlier Bombay High Court ruling, Harsha Nitin Kokate. The Bombay High Court's Division Bench in this very case rejected that view and held Kokate to be wrongly decided, prompting the nominees' appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that nomination under the Companies Act and Depositories Act does not create a "third line of succession" or a "statutory testament" that overrides the law of succession (the Indian Succession Act or intestate succession law). Following its own consistent precedent on nominations under other statutes (such as life insurance and bank deposits, e.g., Sarbati Devi and Ram Chander Talwar), the Court explained that the purpose of nomination is only to give the company or depository a valid, simple way to discharge its obligations immediately after a shareholder's death, so someone is authorized to deal with the company pending the succession process, not to confer real ownership rights that trump a will or the succession laws. The nominee therefore holds the shares/securities only until the legal heirs establish their rightful claim, and a valid bequest under a will supersedes the nomination. The Court expressly overruled Kokate and dismissed the appeal, upholding the Bombay High Court's Division Bench ruling.
Naming someone as a "nominee" for shares, mutual funds, or bank/demat holdings does not make that person the legal owner of the asset after your death. It only authorizes them to receive or deal with the asset temporarily; the actual ownership still passes according to your will or the ordinary laws of inheritance, so nomination is not a substitute for proper estate planning.
