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 had checked in for an IndiGo flight from Kolkata to Agartala and were issued boarding passes, but failed to reach the boarding gate before it closed and were treated as a "Gate No Show." They claimed the airline's ground staff left them behind without informing them and snatched away their boarding passes, forcing them to spend two nights in a Kolkata hotel. The District Consumer Forum, the State Commission, and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had all ruled in the passengers' favour, awarding compensation and costs against the airline.
The Supreme Court held that the consumer fora had wrongly shifted the burden of proof onto the airline without the complainants first establishing the basic facts of any deficiency in service. The complaint did not allege that any announcement was missed, or that the passengers sought and were denied assistance from ground staff, between the time their boarding passes were issued (07:35 a.m.) and the boarding gate's closure (08:58 a.m.). The Court distinguished "Gate No Show" (passenger's own failure to report in time) from "denied boarding" (airline's fault), holding that under the airline's Conditions of Carriage a Gate No Show only entitles a passenger to a refund of government/airport fees, not full compensation. Finding no proven deficiency in service, the Court set aside the orders of all three consumer fora and dismissed the original complaint, while directing that the amount already deposited and withdrawn by the respondents need not be refunded.
Passengers who are issued a boarding pass must proceed promptly to the boarding gate well before the stipulated cut-off (often 25 minutes before departure); airlines are not obliged to escort or wait for a passenger who fails to do so, and a consumer complaint must specifically plead and prove facts showing a deficiency in service rather than relying on sympathy.
