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.
The Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board ran a competitive bidding round in 2018 to authorise companies to build city gas distribution networks in various areas, including Puducherry, Kanchipuram, and Chennai & Tiruvallur. Bidders competed partly on how many new domestic gas connections they promised to provide. The Board found that some winning bids promised unrealistically high numbers of connections (in one case over 150% of all households in the area) and debated whether to reject these as "unreasonably high" under its bidding rules, eventually giving the affected bidders a chance to justify their numbers before accepting most of them. A losing bidder, Adani Gas, challenged the awards before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, whose two members disagreed with each other, leading the Supreme Court to take over the matter directly.
The Supreme Court held that the Board's internal note on acceptable ranges for projected connections (2% to 100% of households) was not an absolute, binding rule, especially since it was drawn up after bids were already submitted; the Board therefore had discretion to decide reasonableness case-by-case rather than being mechanically bound by that range. The Court found the Board had acted fairly by giving the high-bidding entities a chance to explain their numbers, and that assessing whether one bidder's quote was reasonable did not require hearing from competing bidders, since it did not change their own scores. The Court sided with the Technical Member's view over the Tribunal Chairperson's, dismissed Adani Gas's appeals, and upheld the award of the gas distribution contracts as originally decided by the Board.
When a regulator sets internal benchmarks to screen bids, those benchmarks don't have to be treated as rigid cut-offs if the regulator reasonably explains its case-by-case approach and gives affected parties a fair chance to justify their numbers: courts will generally not second-guess that kind of reasoned administrative discretion.
