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.
National Spot Exchange Ltd (NSEL), a subsidiary of 63 Moons Technologies (formerly Financial Technologies India Ltd, "FTIL"), collapsed in 2013 after defaults of about Rs 5,600 crore by trading members, leading to investigations, a forensic audit, and findings that FTIL was not "fit and proper" to hold equity in commodity exchanges. The Central Government subsequently ordered the compulsory amalgamation of FTIL (a profitable, solvent company) into NSEL (which had no genuine business left) under Section 396 of the Companies Act, 1956, prompting FTIL and its shareholders to challenge the order; the Bombay High Court upheld it, leading to this appeal.
The Supreme Court held that an amalgamation order under Section 396 requires the government to be satisfied that the merger is "essential in the public interest," and found that the order against FTIL did not meet this bar since FTIL itself had committed no wrongdoing and was not shown to be essential to merge for any genuine public purpose beyond recovering NSEL's dues. The Court also held that the statutory requirement to assess and pay fair compensation to the amalgamating company's shareholders and creditors for loss of economic value (Section 396(3)) was never properly complied with, since compensation was effectively assessed as nil without real consideration of the fall in FTIL's share value. For these reasons the amalgamation order was held to be ultra vires Section 396 and arbitrary, hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The appeals were allowed, the Bombay High Court's judgment was set aside, and the connected writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
The government's power to force a merger of companies "in the public interest" is not unlimited: it cannot be used to make a healthy company absorb the liabilities of another merely for administrative convenience, and shareholders/creditors of the company being merged have a real, enforceable right to fair compensation for the loss in value caused by the merger.
