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.
7878 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 respondents were appointed in 1971 to posts in Rajasthan's Animal Husbandry Department, and between 1976 and 1978 they applied for and were selected, after interviews, to work in the Rajasthan State Dairy Development Corporation's Milk Unions ("Dairy Federations"). A 1976 government letter told them their "lien" (their retained claim on their original government post) would last only two years or until their confirmation in the Dairy Federations, whichever came first. They worked in, were promoted within, and eventually retired from the Dairy Federations between 1999-2003, receiving retirement benefits there, but six to nine years after retiring, they filed writ petitions claiming they were still entitled to a government pension because their lien with the State had supposedly never ended. The Rajasthan High Court's Single Judge and then a Division Bench both ruled in the respondents' favour, prompting the State to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that once the respondents accepted fresh appointment in the Dairy Federations after due selection and interview, and were later permanently absorbed/confirmed there, their lien on the earlier government post automatically stood terminated under Rule 18(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, which does not permit a government servant to hold a lien on two substantive posts at once. The Court found the 1976 letter and their own appointment terms had made this clear from the outset, and rejected the argument that a lien can never be terminated without consent: that rule protects an employee from being left with no post at all, not one who has knowingly moved to and been confirmed in a new permanent post. Since the respondents had already received full retirement benefits from the Dairy Federations, the High Court's orders were quashed and the claim for a separate State government pension was rejected; the appeals by the State were allowed with no costs.
A government employee cannot simultaneously hold a "lien" on two permanent posts. Once you accept confirmed/permanent appointment with a new employer after due selection, any lien on your earlier government post lapses automatically, and you cannot claim pension from your old employer years later after already taking retirement benefits from the new one.
