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.
A landlord sued his tenant for possession, rent and mesne profit over a shop in Roorkee in 1994 before the Small Cause Court. The tenant repeatedly sought adjournments without ever filing a written statement, leading the court to proceed ex-parte and eventually decree the suit in the landlord's favour in 1998. The tenant then applied under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the ex-parte decree, but failed to deposit the decretal/rent amount as mandatorily required by the proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887: a precondition for even entertaining such an application. The Uttarakhand High Court nonetheless ruled in the tenant's favour, holding the lower courts had taken a "hyper-technical and pedantic" approach.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had overlooked crucial foundational facts and that compliance with the Section 17 proviso's deposit requirement is a mandatory condition precedent for maintainability of an application to set aside an ex-parte decree in Small Cause Court proceedings, not a mere procedural formality that can be excused as "hyper-technical." It found the tenant had neither deposited the required amount along with his Order 9 Rule 13 application nor otherwise satisfied this precondition, so the trial court was right to reject his application, and the High Court erred in calling that approach pedantic. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and the order rejecting the review, restored the trial court's rejection of the tenant's application, and directed the Executing Court to put the landlord in possession with full decretal dues within three months, also awarding costs against the tenant.
When a special statute (like the Small Cause Courts Act) lays down a mandatory precondition, such as depositing rent/decretal dues before an ex-parte decree can be challenged, courts cannot waive that requirement by labelling strict compliance as "hyper-technical"; procedural safeguards built into the law must be honoured, especially when they protect against prolonged delay tactics by a losing party.
