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 appellant's late husband, a retired Coal India employee, had been receiving pension at his native place, Darbhanga (Bihar), for about eight years when the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner at Asansol suddenly directed that his pension be stopped and over Rs. 8 lakh be refunded, alleging he was never validly entitled to the pension scheme option he had exercised. He challenged this in the Patna High Court, but a Single Judge dismissed the writ petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction, reasoning that an earlier, unrelated writ petition on a different issue had also been dismissed on the same ground and that a separate case was pending in the Jharkhand High Court. The Division Bench affirmed this dismissal, and after his death, his widow (the appellant) pursued the appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the Patna High Court did have territorial jurisdiction because the appellant's husband was continuously receiving his pension and suffered the injury (stoppage of pension and demand for refund) at his home in Darbhanga, which is within Patna High Court's jurisdiction: this was a distinct cause of action from the earlier, unrelated writ petition. The Court further held that the "forum non conveniens" argument (that he should have gone to the Jharkhand High Court instead, since an unrelated case was pending there) had no merit, since a retired employee receiving pension at his home should not be forced to litigate elsewhere. The Court set aside the High Court orders, revived the writ petition before the Patna High Court for decision on merits, and additionally directed that the appellant-widow be paid provisional pension pending that final decision.
Where a government decision affects a person at the place they actually live and receive their benefits, courts there generally have jurisdiction to hear the challenge: a technical objection about an earlier, unrelated case filed elsewhere is not enough to shut the door on a pensioner's right to be heard close to home.
