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.
A 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act gave daughters equal rights with sons as "coparceners" (joint owners by birth) in ancestral family property, reversing earlier law that only recognized sons in this role. However, two earlier Supreme Court benches had given conflicting answers on a crucial question: did this benefit apply only if the father (through whom the daughter claims coparcenary status) was still alive on the date the amendment came into force (9 September 2005), as held in Prakash v. Phulavati (2016), or could a daughter claim the right even if her father had already died before that date, as suggested in Danamma v. Amar (2018)? This case, along with several connected petitions raising the same question, was referred to a three-judge Bench to resolve the conflict.
The Supreme Court held that a daughter becomes a coparcener by birth, in exactly the same manner as a son, and this status does not depend on whether her father was alive on 9 September 2005: the right is unconditional and not based on the father's survival. The Court ruled that the 2005 amendment operates retroactively in effect (though not reopening settled transactions), with specific protections for partitions, sales, or gifts that were validly completed before 20 December 2004. It also clarified that a claimed earlier "oral partition" generally cannot defeat a daughter's share unless it is backed by genuine public documents equivalent to a registered deed or court decree. The Court overruled Prakash v. Phulavati, partly overruled Danamma, and directed that all pending cases on this issue across the country be decided within six months in line with this ruling.
A daughter's right to an equal share in ancestral Hindu joint family property is a right by birth that does not depend on whether her father was alive when the 2005 law reform took effect: this judgment is the authoritative, final word that settled years of conflicting court decisions on daughters' inheritance rights in Hindu families.
