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 respondent, appointed in 1992 as a daily-wage Hindi typist with the Madhya Pradesh government, applied to the Labour Court to be categorized as a permanent Lower Division Clerk with corresponding permanent pay, relying on a Standing Order that deemed certain long-serving temporary employees permanent. The Labour Court, the Appellate Authority, and later the Madhya Pradesh High Court all concurrently found as fact that she had worked continuously for more than six months on a vacant post and was therefore entitled to be treated as a permanent employee; the State government appealed to the Supreme Court, also disputing a related High Court direction classifying her as a Hindi Stenographer from 1999 based on a separate departmental order under enquiry.
The Supreme Court held that where three successive forums (Labour Court, Appellate Authority, and High Court) have all concurrently reached the same finding of fact on her entitlement to permanent status, and that finding is not shown to be perverse, the Supreme Court's limited appellate scope does not permit re-appreciating that evidence. It upheld her permanent status as a Lower Division Clerk, and separately upheld (with a clarification) her classification as a Hindi Stenographer, but based this not on the disputed/under-enquiry departmental order of 2004, but independently on her own long and satisfactory service record after having already attained permanent status: expressly ring-fencing this from affecting any pending individual enquiries into similar claims by other employees. The appeal was accordingly dismissed/disposed of with a direction that her service benefits be computed and paid promptly.
When a lower court's factual finding, such as an employee's eligibility for permanent status based on length of service, has been affirmed concurrently by multiple forums, the Supreme Court will generally not re-examine that finding on appeal unless it is shown to be perverse; consistent findings across courts carry significant weight.
