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.
N.R. Bhat, an employee of Syndicate Bank, was dismissed from service in 1997 following disciplinary proceedings, but the High Court later set aside the dismissal and remitted the matter back to the Bank. While an intra-court appeal by the Bank was pending, the parties reached a settlement in 2019 replacing the dismissal with a reduced pay scale, but the High Court's order also allowed Bhat to separately apply for pension benefits, even though he had earlier missed two opportunities (in 1995 and via a 2010 circular) to opt into the pension scheme. Syndicate Bank challenged this liberty granted to Bhat, and Bhat separately complained that the Bank had delayed paying him the settlement dues due under the 2019 Joint Memo.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Bank that Bhat could not be allowed to belatedly opt for pension in 2019, since he had already had ample opportunity to do so earlier (in 1995 and again through the 2010 circular) once his employer-employee relationship was restored by the 2005 High Court order, and having entered into a settlement, he could not additionally claim pension benefits. However, the Court found merit in Bhat's separate grievance that the Bank had unjustifiably delayed paying his settlement dues (releasing them only in September 2023, years after they fell due), despite being told at the outset that the Joint Memo should be implemented. It therefore directed the Bank to pay Bhat simple interest at 12% per annum on the delayed amount from July 2019, escalating to 15% if not paid within four weeks.
An employee who repeatedly fails to exercise a time-bound option (such as opting into a pension scheme) when it is available cannot invoke it belatedly after settling the dispute on other terms; conversely, an employer who delays paying agreed settlement dues can be made to pay a punitive rate of interest for that delay.
