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 father and son (the plaintiffs) were partners in a building-and-development partnership firm in Bangalore that owned a commercial property earning substantial rent. Under a 1992 partnership deed, the father was entitled to a 50% profit share only if he contributed Rs. 50 lakh in capital by a deadline, failing which his share would drop to 10%. A later 1995 deed, admittedly executed by all partners, reconstituted the firm and expressly recorded the father and son as entitled to 25% each (50% together) with no such capital-contribution condition. After a falling-out in 2004 the other partners expelled the plaintiffs and claimed their true share was only 10%, alleging the 25%-each figures in the 1995 deed were a clerical "mistake." Both the trial court and the Karnataka High Court accepted this and held the plaintiffs entitled to only 10%.
The Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred in law, applying Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act to hold that once parties reduce their agreement to a written, deliberately negotiated document like the 1995 deed, that document's terms cannot be contradicted by oral claims of "mistake" without the defendants discharging the burden of proving the mistake, which they failed to do here, especially since the 1995 deed's profit/loss percentages were internally consistent and no correction was ever made between 1995 and 2004. The Court therefore declared the plaintiffs together entitled to 50% of the firm's profits and losses up to 18.6.2004, modifying the compensation finding, but upheld the separate finding that the plaintiffs were validly expelled from the firm from that date onward under the firm's expulsion clause.
When partners deliberately reduce their agreement to a formal written deed, courts will hold them to its plain terms; a party who later claims the written document contained a "mistake" bears a heavy burden to prove it, and mere assertion, especially years of inaction without correcting an alleged error, will not suffice to override a clear written contract.
