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 company, Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited (SRUIL), was already the subject of a long-pending winding-up petition before the Bombay High Court, with a provisional liquidator appointed and some of its mortgaged assets already handed over to and sold by a secured creditor (Indiabulls) outside the winding-up process. While that winding-up proceeding was still pending, another creditor, SREI Equipment Finance, separately filed a fresh application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) before the NCLT, which was admitted. The appellant, another creditor pursuing its own claims through the winding-up route, challenged the maintainability of SREI's Section 7 IBC petition, arguing that once a winding-up petition is admitted it should take precedence and block any later IBC proceeding against the same company.
The Supreme Court held that a petition under Section 7 or Section 9 of the IBC is an independent proceeding that stands on its own merits and is not barred merely because a winding-up petition against the same company is already pending or admitted, drawing on its own precedents (Forech, Jaipur Metals, Kaledonia, Action Ispat) on the relationship between the two regimes. It explained that only when a company's winding up has reached an irreversible, "point of no return" stage (such as genuine corporate death) should the Company Court decline to allow matters to shift to the IBC framework, since the IBC's object is to prioritise revival of distressed companies over liquidation wherever still possible. On facts, nothing irreversible had occurred in SRUIL's winding up, and SREI's non-disclosure of the pending winding-up proceeding in its IBC application did not invalidate the IBC petition since it is to be decided purely on its own statutory parameters; the appeal was accordingly dismissed and the interim stay earlier granted by the Supreme Court was vacated.
Creditors are not locked into whichever insolvency-resolution route was filed first: a fresh IBC insolvency application against a company can proceed on its own merits even while an older winding-up case is pending in the High Court, unless the company's liquidation has already reached a point of no return.
