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.
The respondent, an Army officer, alleged that while serving as Defence Attaché in the USA, changes to how his Annual Confidential Reports were assessed (switching from figurative/numeric grading to only a "pen-picture" narrative, later reversed for his successors) unfairly damaged his career prospects. He claimed this cost him a proper nomination to the National Defence College course and ultimately his promotion first to Major General and later to Lieutenant General. A learned Single Judge of the High Court ruled substantially in his favour, directing the Army to revise his service profile and reconsider him for promotion; a Division Bench affirmed this but added further critical observations against the Army's conduct. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court against both the original relief and the Division Bench's additional observations.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Single Judge's core findings, that certain superior officers had made an unauthorized figurative assessment of the respondent contrary to policy, and that he had been illegally denied a legitimate second "look" for the National Defence College nomination, and found no reason to disturb the direction for reassessment of his profile and reconsideration for promotion. However, it held the Division Bench had gone further than it should have: it faulted the Single Judge for not deciding certain issues that were never actually raised by the respondent (such as whether his US posting counted as "Extra-Regimental Employment") and for treating a non-selection as a vital issue when it had already been overtaken by his later promotion. The Supreme Court therefore set aside only those additional Division Bench observations while upholding the Single Judge's judgment, and dismissed the Union of India's appeals.
In administrative and service-law disputes, an appellate court should confine itself to the issues actually raised by the parties; criticizing a lower court for not deciding a question nobody asked it to decide is itself an appealable error, and here it did not change the final outcome of the case.
