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.
Adani Gas Limited was selected in 2005-06 to lay a City Gas Distribution Network in Udaipur and Jaipur and was given a No Objection Certificate (NOC) by the Rajasthan government after depositing a Rs. 2 crore commitment fee; it then spent large sums building roughly 75 km of pipeline. After the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006 came into force, Adani applied for formal "authorisation" of its projects, but the Board rejected its application in 2011 on the ground that its physical and financial progress before the cut-off date was inadequate and that it had kept laying pipeline despite a Board notice to stop. The very next day, the Rajasthan government also withdrew Adani's NOC and forfeited its Rs. 2 crore fee. Adani's challenge to both orders was dismissed by the Rajasthan High Court, leading to this appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the regulations required the Board to weigh several criteria together (compliance with technical standards, land/equipment procurement, financial position, gas-supply arrangements, etc.), not treat a shortfall on just one criterion (physical/financial progress) as automatically fatal, since the regulation used the word "may" rather than making every factor mandatory. The Board had also failed to properly factor in a 2010 legal change that granted "deemed authorisation" to entities already building such networks before the cutoff date, and had not given Adani a proper hearing on this point. Because of these flaws, the Court quashed both the Board's rejection order and the State government's order withdrawing the NOC and forfeiting the fee, and directed the Board to reconsider Adani's application afresh within four weeks, giving Adani a fresh hearing and the chance to file further written submissions.
A regulator exercising discretionary power under a "may consider these factors" rule must weigh all the relevant factors together and give a fair hearing before rejecting an application: it cannot pick one criterion in isolation, ignore a relevant change in law (like a deemed-authorisation provision), and deny the affected party an opportunity to respond.
