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.
In 2008, the Odisha (then Orissa) government invited recommendations to fill 150 vacant posts in the Orissa Administrative Service (OAS) Class-II cadre, and 559 candidates, including the respondents, were recommended by their departments. Before the selection process could be completed through the required steps (Selection Board scrutiny, Public Service Commission consultation, and a final approved list), the State restructured its administrative cadres in 2009, abolishing the OAS Class-II posts and replacing them with a new Orissa Revenue Service Group 'B' cadre. The respondents went to the Orissa Administrative Tribunal and later the Orissa High Court, seeking to be promoted/appointed against the original 2008 vacancies under the old rules; the High Court ruled in their favour and directed the State to hold a fresh review selection to fill those 150 posts under the repealed 1978 rules. The State appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeals and set aside the High Court's judgment. It held that merely being recommended by a department is only the first of several steps in the selection process (recommendation, Selection Board scrutiny, Public Service Commission consultation, and a final approved list), since the respondents' candidature never advanced past the first step, no vested or accrued right to promotion had arisen in their favour. The Court reaffirmed that a candidate's right is only to be considered for promotion under the rules in force when the actual selection exercise is carried out, not under rules in force when the vacancy first arose, relying on its earlier decisions in Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P., Union of India v. Krishna Kumar, and Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Chanan Ram. Since the OAS Class-II cadre itself had been abolished and replaced before any final selection list was prepared, the respondents could not claim a lien over posts that no longer existed, and directing the State to fill those now-abolished posts under a repealed set of rules was contrary to law.
Being recommended or shortlisted for a government promotion/appointment is not the same as acquiring a legal right to it: that right only crystallises once the selection process is actually completed through all its prescribed stages. If the government restructures or abolishes a cadre before that happens, candidates cannot insist on appointment to posts that no longer exist.
