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.
The respondent-landlord sued the appellants' late father, a tenant, for arrears of rent (Rs. 8,000) and eviction from a shop. The Small Causes Court proceeded ex parte and decreed the suit, ordering eviction plus arrears, costs, and ongoing compensation of Rs. 2,000/month for use of the shop until possession was handed over. The tenant applied under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree and deposited Rs. 11,212 (the quantified arrears and costs), but not the further ongoing monthly compensation amount (which had not been specifically quantified in the decree). Both the Trial Court and the Allahabad High Court rejected the application, holding that Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 mandatorily requires full deposit of everything due under the decree before an ex parte decree can be challenged, relying on the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in Kedarnath vs Mohan Lal Kesarwari.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the ex parte decree, restoring the suit for trial on merits. It held that Section 17's deposit requirement, while mandatory in principle, must be applied practically and not used to penalize a defendant who made a genuine, substantial attempt to comply - here the tenant had deposited the specifically quantified arrears and costs, and the case was distinguishable from Kedarnath where the applicant had made no deposit at all and sought no leave to dispense with it. The Court noted the appellants, when queried by the Court, promptly deposited a further Rs. 1,90,000 covering rent/mesne profits up to the date of hearing, showing bona fide intent. Since the decree involved eviction (not merely a money claim) and the ongoing compensation amount had never been precisely quantified by the Trial Court, an overly technical, rigid application of Section 17 was inappropriate, and the tenant deserved a chance to contest the eviction suit on its merits.
The requirement to deposit money due under a decree before challenging an ex parte judgment (Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act) should be applied practically, not mechanically; a defendant who deposits the clearly quantified amounts and shows genuine good faith should not be shut out from a merits hearing merely because an unquantified, ongoing compensation figure was not also deposited.
