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.
Following a 1991 departmental examination for promotion of Extra Departmental Delivery Agents to the post of Postman in the Kanpur Postal Region, a dispute arose over how merit and vacancies should be counted across different divisions (Banda, Fatehpur, Fatehgarh) feeding into 17 vacancies at Kanpur Head Post Offices. The respondent, Hanuman Giri, who ranked 12th in his own Banda Division's merit list, claimed entitlement to promotion based on an earlier tribunal order benefiting another candidate, and the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), later upheld by the Allahabad High Court, ruled in his favour on the mistaken premise that he had scored more marks than that other candidate. The postal department appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the respondent's actual rank in the correct common merit list did not entitle him to promotion.
The Supreme Court examined the original 1991 notification and found that, because Banda Division had no Postman vacancies of its own, qualified candidates there had to be considered against vacancies elsewhere based on a common merit list spanning all divisions, not the division-specific list. On that common list, the respondent ranked 43rd, well below the 17 vacancies available, whereas the comparator candidate relied upon by the CAT ranked 2nd; the CAT's order had proceeded on the mistaken factual assumption that the respondent was more meritorious than that comparator, when in fact he was not. Because this assumption was factually wrong, the Court held the CAT and High Court orders directing the respondent's promotion were unsustainable, set them aside, and allowed the department's appeals with no order as to costs.
Promotion and seniority claims that span multiple divisions or units must be evaluated against the correct common merit list, not a local or partial one; a decision built on a mistaken comparison of marks, even if made by a tribunal, can be overturned once the actual figures are correctly verified.
