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 respondent, an Assistant Teacher with the Delhi Directorate of Education, resigned in March 2012 to contest a Municipal Corporation of Delhi councillor election, and her resignation was accepted with immediate effect. After losing the election, she applied within weeks to withdraw her resignation and rejoin duty, but the authorities left this request pending for years. After a first round of litigation, the Delhi High Court directed the authorities to decide her request on specific parameters; they rejected it citing a pending memorandum of charges against her, but the Central Administrative Tribunal and then the Delhi High Court (in a second round) both found this rejection unjustified and ordered her reinstatement, prompting the Delhi Government's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined Rule 26(4) of the relevant service rules, which allows withdrawal of resignation in certain circumstances even after it has taken effect, and held there is no absolute bar preventing an employer from permitting withdrawal after acceptance. The government relied on a later Delhi High Court ruling (Manisha Sharma) holding that a resignation given to contest an election, once accepted, cannot be withdrawn, but the Supreme Court held that ratio did not apply here because the employer itself had never raised that specific objection at any stage; instead, it had only ever cited the pending charge memorandum as its ground for refusal, and had accepted the boundary of inquiry set by the High Court's earlier order without challenge. Since the employer's own stated reasons for rejection had been found insufficient by both the Tribunal and the High Court, and the employer could not now rely retroactively on a different, un-pleaded legal ground, the Supreme Court declined to interfere and dismissed the government's appeal.
An employer's decision must stand or fall on the reasons it actually gave at the time: a court will not let the employer substitute a stronger legal argument discovered later to justify a decision that was not based on that reasoning in the first place.
