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.
A property originally owned by two brothers was mortgaged by one brother to a state finance corporation, which later auctioned it after the loan went unpaid; the appellant's predecessor bought it at auction. The other brother (who had not consented to the mortgage) first lost a suit for possession filed by the auction-purchaser, and then filed his own separate suit for partition and a half-share, challenging the validity of the same sale deed. The purchaser's successor (the appellant) asked the trial court to reject this second suit outright under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, arguing it was barred by res judicata since the sale deed's validity had already been litigated, but the trial court and the Karnataka High Court both refused to reject the plaint.
The Supreme Court held that an application to reject a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC (for being "barred by law") must be decided purely by looking at the averments within the plaint itself: a court cannot go outside the plaint to examine the defendant's written statement or the record of an earlier suit at this preliminary stage. Since deciding whether the second suit was barred by res judicata would require comparing the pleadings, issues and judgment from the earlier suit (not just reading the new plaint), that question could not be resolved through an Order 7 Rule 11 application and had to be examined as a proper issue in the ongoing trial. The Court found the plaint on its face did not conceal the existence of the earlier suit and did not disclose that it was barred by any law, so the lower courts were right to let the suit proceed. It dismissed the appeal, while giving the appellant liberty to raise res judicata as a preliminary issue in the trial court, with the whole suit to be finally decided by 31 March 2022.
A court deciding whether to throw out a lawsuit at the very first stage (under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC) can only look at what the plaintiff has written in the plaint itself: defenses like "this was already decided before" (res judicata) usually need a full hearing with evidence from both sides, not a shortcut dismissal.
