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.
Daily-wage workers of Gujarat's Forest Department, represented by their union, had long fought for the benefits given to other daily wagers under a 1988 Government Resolution, including regularisation and pension. A 2013 Supreme Court judgment had already directed the State to extend specific benefits to these workers after they completed a set number of years of service. When the State allegedly failed to fully implement that judgment, the Union initiated contempt proceedings in the Gujarat High Court, which ruled against the State; the State then appealed to the Supreme Court, raising several objections about how the 2013 judgment should be interpreted and implemented.
The Supreme Court went through the State's five specific objections to how the earlier 2013 judgment's benefits should be computed and applied. It agreed with the State that regularised daily wagers must be fitted into the official statutory pay scales (not given pay exceeding permanently appointed staff), that only years with 240+ days of actual service count toward eligibility, and that the earlier judgment's reference to casual leave was the result of a translation error: workers are entitled to 12 days casual leave plus 2 days voluntary leave, same as regular employees, not 14 days in addition. On pension/provident fund, the Court fixed 1 April 2005 as a cut-off: those who attained regular status before that date get the old GPF/pension scheme, and those after get the new CPF/NPS scheme. The High Court's judgment was modified accordingly, and the State was directed to work out and pay the benefits within two months.
When government daily-wage workers are regularised, their benefits must be worked out strictly per the applicable statutory pay rules and the actual terms of the court order: ambiguities (like a translation error inflating leave entitlement) get corrected, and parity with permanent staff cannot be stretched beyond what the rules allow.
