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 had worked as a teacher and then as a clerk at a school in Haridwar, which later began receiving government grants-in-aid. She claimed her services were illegally terminated in March 2006 without any enquiry or compensation, and filed a complaint nine years after allegedly leaving service. The school's case, supported by an inspection and audit report, was that she had actually abandoned her job back in 1997 after her marriage and had not worked since, with another clerk having been engaged in her place in 2002. After conflicting rounds before the Labour Court and High Court, the Labour Court ultimately ruling against her for lack of evidence, but the High Court reversing that solely because no disciplinary enquiry had been held, the State of Uttarakhand (as the school's later administrator) appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that where no domestic/disciplinary enquiry has been held before an employee's discharge, the matter is not automatically decided in the employee's favour, rather, it is open to the employer to justify its action by leading evidence before the Labour Court, and the entire dispute is then examined on the merits of that evidence (citing a long line of precedent including Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory and Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co.). The High Court had erred by setting aside the Labour Court's award solely on the "no enquiry held" ground without examining the evidence. On the merits, the Court found the School had proved the respondent abandoned her job in 1997, while she had failed to prove she had worked the requisite 240 days before her claimed 2006 termination, as the burden to prove continuous service rests entirely on the workman. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment set aside, and the Labour Court's award (against the employee) restored.
An employer's failure to hold a disciplinary enquiry before terminating an employee does not by itself guarantee the employee reinstatement: the dispute can still be decided against the employee on the actual evidence, and it is the workman's own burden to prove continuous employment (such as 240 days' work) to claim protection against termination.
