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.
A premature baby, delivered at Sarvodaya Hospital and then referred to government-run Safdarjung Hospital for emergency neonatal care, died a few weeks after birth. The parents filed a consumer complaint alleging negligence by both hospitals; it was initially dismissed, then partly succeeded against Sarvodaya Hospital before the State Commission (which also found Safdarjung negligent on the facts, even while holding Safdarjung could not be sued since it gave free treatment), and finally the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) exonerated Sarvodaya but held Safdarjung Hospital liable to pay Rs. 2 lakh compensation. The Union of India and Safdarjung Hospital appealed, primarily on the ground that a hospital providing free treatment is outside the consumer fora's jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court noted that under its earlier ruling in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, only a hospital providing free treatment across the board to all patients falls outside the Consumer Protection Act's reach, but Safdarjung Hospital had never placed evidence before the lower fora to show it met that test, relying only on one doctor's bare assertion that this particular patient was treated free. Since no proper factual foundation had been laid at any stage, including before the Supreme Court itself, the Court declined to give a conclusive ruling on the jurisdiction question in general, and chose not to overturn the modest Rs. 2 lakh award given the small amount involved. The appeal was dismissed, but the Court expressly clarified that its decision should not be treated as a precedent on whether government hospitals like Safdarjung fall under consumer-protection jurisdiction, leaving that question open for a future case with a proper evidentiary record.
A hospital (or any institution) claiming it is exempt from consumer protection law because its services are free must actually prove that with evidence: a bare, unsupported claim will not succeed, and courts may decide a case on its narrow facts without settling the larger legal question for everyone else.
