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.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1056
In railway accident compensation claims, a victim's family does not have to produce the physical train ticket to prove bona fide travel. A sworn statement explaining its loss is enough to shift the burden onto the Railways, and any delay by the Railways in conducting its own mandatory investigation cannot be used against the claimants.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1055
In a bareboat charter with a clause designating the charterer a mere "gratuitous bailee" after termination, a validly served termination notice ends the charterer's status immediately. Physical handover of the vessel is just the mechanical follow-through, not a condition for the termination to take legal effect; this matters directly for maritime creditors deciding whom, and which vessel, to target for arrest.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1054
A court cannot pick and choose parts of a witness's testimony to convict on one charge while rejecting the same testimony to acquit on a closely related charge arising from the same facts. If the witness's account is unreliable for one charge, that unreliability cannot simply be set aside for a more serious, connected charge.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1050
Even in the gravest crimes, a death sentence cannot be sustained unless the prosecution affirmatively rules out the possibility of the offender's reform and shows that no lesser punishment (including life imprisonment without remission) would meet the ends of justice, and courts must give the accused a genuine, separate hearing on sentence with full background material, not decide punishment on the same day as conviction.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1057
When commercial parties in an arbitration-bound contract are willing to agree on a sole arbitrator, courts will readily facilitate that agreement and let the arbitral tribunal itself take over interim relief, rather than continuing to litigate stay applications through multiple court levels.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1047
In government/paramilitary service disputes over wrongful dismissal, what matters under Article 311 is the officer who actually issued the final, unconditional appointment order (not a preliminary conditional call-letter or offer), and courts will read the specific service rules to see which ranks are legally empowered to both appoint and discipline an employee. A call for training is not the same as an appointment.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1048
A trial court cannot order that a convict "remain in prison for the rest of their natural life" without any possibility of remission, only the Supreme Court or a High Court can impose such a sentence, and even then only in appropriately grave cases, after weighing both the brutality of the crime and factors like time already served and conduct in custody.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1049
A criminal complaint under a special protective law like POCSO is not automatically true merely because it was registered; courts must carefully scrutinise such allegations, especially when they surface during an acrimonious custody battle, since false accusations of this kind cause lasting damage both to the falsely accused parent and to the child caught in the middle.
Civil Appeal (Interim Order) · 2026 INSC 1043
There is no final ruling yet. The present custody arrangement is temporary, and the case is still pending.
Legal 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.
Civil Appeal No. 8167 of 2017
In 1964, several family members formed a partnership firm, M/s Viraj Constructions, which carried out railway construction works and acquired land in Begumpet, Hyderabad in the firm's name. One partner (the original plaintiff's father) sought to retire in 1970 and later, after a failed suit to recover money he was promised, sent a formal notice in 1983 dissolving the partnership (since it was a "partnership at will") and demanding rendition of accounts and his share. He then filed a civil suit for accounts, and after decades of litigation the trial court and, on appeal, the High Court held the firm stood dissolved from 18.10.1983 and that he was entitled to a 25% share, with the value of that share to be assessed as of the date of dissolution rather than an earlier or later date. The remaining partners (appellants) challenged the High Court's 2012 judgment on how the share and the land were to be valued and distributed before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court surveyed the scheme of Sections 46 to 48 of the Partnership Act governing the winding-up and settlement of accounts of a dissolved firm, and relevant precedent establishing that partnership assets must be valued at their real (market) value, not book value, as on the date of dissolution, and that a retiring or dissolving partner's share must be assessed on that same date rather than any later valuation date. Applying this, the Court held that since the partnership was one at will, it stood validly dissolved with effect from 18.10.1983 (the date of the dissolution notice), and the remaining partners could not simply continue to retain and use the firm's land as if a fresh partnership owned it, since that land legally belonged to the dissolved firm and could only have been validly retained by purchasing it out. The Court upheld the High Court's directions that a Commissioner determine the current value of the property, that the other partners could pay the plaintiff's share (25%) after deducting liabilities and keep the property, or otherwise the property must be sold and proceeds distributed as per each partner's share. Finding the High Court's approach pragmatic, equitable, and legally sound, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.
When a partnership at will is dissolved by notice, the dissolution takes effect from that notice date, and every partner's share in the firm's assets must be valued at real market value as of that dissolution date. Remaining partners cannot simply keep using the dissolved firm's property as their own without buying out the departing partner's share.
