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.
Adani Gas had been developing a city gas distribution network in Ahmedabad under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB). When PNGRB finally granted it authorization in 2013, three specific areas (Sanand, Bavla and Dholka) were excluded. Adani accepted the authorization (with the exclusions) without protest, gave a performance bond, and even participated in a later PNGRB auction for those very excluded areas, but lost the bid to Gujarat Gas. Only after losing did Adani go to the Gujarat High Court, challenging both the exclusion and the validity of Regulation 18 of the PNGRB's CGD Regulations, 2008 (under which authorizations are granted). The High Court dismissed its writ petitions, and Adani appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court dismissed Adani's appeals. It held that the "deemed authorization" benefit under Section 16 of the PNGRB Act is not automatic: it is subject to the conditions in Chapter IV (including Section 17), so only entities already authorized by the Central Government qualify; a prior ruling to the contrary was expressly overruled. The Court also upheld Regulation 18 as valid, holding it was neither arbitrary nor beyond the PNGRB's rule-making power. Most significantly, the Court invoked the principle of "approbate and reprobate", having accepted the authorization on its excluded terms, furnished a bond, and bid for the excluded areas, Adani could not later turn around and challenge the very process it had accepted and participated in. The Court also noted Adani had a statutory appeal remedy against PNGRB's order which it chose not to use, instead litigating years later. Costs of Rs. 10 lakh were imposed on Adani.
A party that knowingly accepts the terms of a regulatory decision, complies with them, and even competes under that very process cannot later challenge it merely because the outcome went against it: the law does not allow a litigant to "approve and disown" the same decision. Businesses dealing with regulators should raise objections promptly (including through available statutory appeals) rather than waiting to see if things work out first.
