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.
Under the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, a competent authority in 1976 included land inherited by a woman named Kaveribai from her mother in the land holdings of her husband Dungaji's family, resulting in a chunk of that family's land being declared "surplus" and liable to be taken by the state. Years later, Dungaji filed a civil suit claiming he had actually divorced Kaveribai by customary divorce long before the Act came into force, so her inherited land should never have counted as his family's property, and also that the competent authority had not followed mandatory procedure. The trial court and first appellate court both disbelieved the claimed customary divorce and dismissed the suit, but the High Court, in a second appeal, reversed those findings, declared the divorce proven, and struck down the 1976 order as null and void. The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the civil suit challenging the competent authority's 1976 order was not maintainable in the first place, because Section 46 of the 1960 Act expressly barred civil courts from deciding questions that the Act required to be decided by the competent authority (subject to its own appeal/revision process), and Dungaji had never pursued that statutory appeal route. On the separate question of the customary divorce, the Court held that the High Court, exercising its narrow second-appeal jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, had wrongly overturned the concurrent factual findings of the trial court and first appellate court, which had reasonably disbelieved the divorce claim, noting, among other things, that Kaveribai had described herself as Dungaji's wife in a 1971 sale deed and that no divorce was ever mentioned during the original 1976 proceedings. The Court restored the trial court's judgment, dismissed Dungaji's suit, and allowed the State's appeal.
A special law that creates its own authority and appeal/revision mechanism (like a land ceiling act) will usually bar an ordinary civil court from separately entertaining a suit over the same question, and appellate courts in a second appeal cannot simply re-weigh evidence and overturn the same factual findings reached by two lower courts unless those findings are shown to be perverse.
