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 appellants had worked for many years as "work-charged" employees (a category of government worker engaged for specific work rather than on a regular sanctioned post) in Bihar, before their services were eventually regularized under the Work Charged Establishment Revised Service Conditions (Repealing) Rules, 2013. A rule under this scheme said their work-charged years would count toward pension only to the extent needed to make up any shortfall in the minimum qualifying service, counted at the rate of one year of pension-qualifying service for every five years of work-charged service, rather than counting the full work-charged period. A Full Bench of the Patna High Court upheld this rule, and the employees appealed.
The Supreme Court held that work-charged employees are fundamentally different from regularly appointed employees (who go through a formal recruitment process onto a sanctioned post), so their earlier work-charged years cannot simply be counted in full towards pension as if they had always been regular employees. At the same time, the Court recognized that denying pension altogether to someone who had rendered long work-charged service, purely because they hadn't completed the "regular" qualifying period, would be unfair, which is exactly why Rule 5(v) exists, allowing work-charged years to be added (at the one-year-per-five-years rate, and further if needed) only to bridge any shortfall in qualifying service, not to inflate the pension amount itself. The Court distinguished the employees' reliance on an earlier ruling (Prem Singh), noting that decision only held work-charged service must count towards qualifying service for pension eligibility, not that it must be counted for calculating the pension amount. The appeals were dismissed.
Employees who worked in a "work-charged" or similarly informal engagement before being regularized are entitled to have that service count toward meeting minimum pension-eligibility requirements, but they cannot claim that the entire work-charged period should be treated the same as regular service for computing the actual pension amount: the specific regularization scheme's formula governs that calculation.
