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, a truck driver, suffered grievous injuries in a 2006 road accident when his sand-loaded truck lost control due to an axle fault and overturned. He sustained severe injuries to his right leg (ligament tears requiring plastic surgery) that permanently disabled him from continuing work as a driver. He filed a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation seeking Rs. 5,00,000, and the matter eventually reached the Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench), which awarded a lower amount than claimed.
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's assessment of the appellant's monthly income at Rs. 4,000 based on his employer's evidence, but held that his functional disability should be assessed at 100% given that his injuries left him unable to walk without a stick, unable to continue as a driver, and disqualified even from holding a driving licence, making him unfit for any comparable manual labour as well. Applying the age-based multiplier (relevant factor 201.66) under Schedule IV of the Act, the Court recalculated the compensation at Rs. 4,83,984, and separately awarded a lump sum of Rs. 1,00,000 towards medical and hospitalization expenses that had not been granted earlier. The insurance company was directed to pay the enhanced compensation with 6% annual interest from one month after the accident date, within four weeks, and the appeal was allowed.
In compensation claims under the Workmen's Compensation Act, "functional disability" (the real-world loss of earning capacity in one's actual occupation) can be assessed as 100% even if the medical/physical disability percentage is lower, if the injury effectively ends the claimant's ability to work in their trade or any comparable one, and unreimbursed medical expenses can be separately claimed and awarded.
