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 appellant (open category) and the first respondent (Scheduled Caste) were both officers in the Maharashtra Town Planning service who had been promoted together to the post of Town Planner in 1992. The first respondent, promoted earlier to Joint Director of Town Planning (JDTP) under reservation rules, was later promoted to the top post of Director of Town Planning (DTP) in 2016, ahead of the appellant, who was senior in service but had less time in the JDTP grade. The appellant challenged this before the Bombay High Court (and after an earlier Supreme Court order, in review before the High Court again), arguing that the "catch-up rule" meant his general seniority should prevail over the respondent's reserved-category promotion.
The Supreme Court held that seniority and eligibility are distinct concepts in service law: a senior employee cannot claim promotion merely on the basis of seniority if he does not independently satisfy the eligibility conditions (here, a minimum tenure requirement in the JDTP grade) prescribed for the higher post. The appellant had not met the eligibility criterion for promotion to DTP on the date the vacancy arose, and had also never formally challenged the respondent's earlier promotion to JDTP or the government circular granting him consequential seniority, so even if the catch-up rule applied in principle, it could not override his own ineligibility. Finding no infirmity in the High Court's reasoning (though for somewhat different reasons), the Supreme Court dismissed all the connected appeals and applications, with no order as to costs.
In promotion disputes, seniority alone does not entitle an employee to a promotion: he or she must independently satisfy the eligibility conditions for the post, and any challenge to a rival's appointment or consequential seniority must be raised specifically and in time, not introduced for the first time as a legal argument on appeal.
