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-wife married the respondent-husband under the Special Marriage Act in 2010 in an inter-caste marriage. After facing alleged harassment, she left the matrimonial home and discovered a copy of a marriage dissolution deed showing the husband had been married before and may not have validly divorced his first wife before marrying her, despite declaring himself a bachelor. She sought a declaration that her marriage was null and void. Both the trial court and the Bombay High Court dismissed her plea, treating it as a claim for nullity under Section 25 of the Act (fraud/coercion), which they held was filed beyond the one-year limitation period, and accepted the husband's claim that a customary divorce had already dissolved his first marriage before his marriage to the appellant.
The Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred by analysing the case only under Section 25 of the Act (which carries a limitation period) when the real basis of the appellant's claim was Section 24 read with Section 4: a marriage is void from the outset if either party had a living spouse at the time of marriage, and no limitation period applies to seeking a declaration of such a void marriage. The Court further found that neither the trial court nor the High Court had framed a specific issue on, or required actual evidence of, the alleged customary divorce between the husband and his first wife; in the absence of proof (and of any issue even being framed on it), the claim of a prior customary divorce could not be accepted. Since the husband's first marriage was therefore not shown to have ended before his marriage to the appellant, her marriage was void under Section 24 read with Section 4 of the Act. The Supreme Court set aside both lower court judgments and granted a decree declaring the marriage between the appellant and respondent null and void.
A marriage entered into while one party already has a living spouse is void from the start, and a person seeking that declaration is not bound by the shorter limitation period that applies to annulment claims based on fraud or coercion; parties who claim a prior customary divorce dissolved an earlier marriage must actually prove it with evidence, not merely assert it.
