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.
Alok Kaushik was appointed as a registered valuer to value the plant and machinery of a company, Kavveri Telecom Infrastructure Limited, after it entered the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. His fee was ratified by the Committee of Creditors, but before he could be paid in full, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) set aside the CIRP itself and remitted the question of costs to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The NCLT then refused to decide Kaushik's fee claim, holding it had become "functus officio" (lacking further power to act), and the NCLAT upheld that refusal, leaving him with only a fraction of the agreed fee paid.
The Supreme Court held that the NCLT was wrong to treat itself as functus officio: under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC, the NCLT/NCLAT retains jurisdiction over any question arising out of or relating to the insolvency resolution process, and a valuer's fee claim for work genuinely done during the CIRP falls squarely within that scope even after the CIRP itself is later set aside. The Court also clarified that the existence of a separate IBBI grievance-redressal mechanism against resolution professionals (Sections 217-220 IBC) is meant to penalise misconduct, not to decide payment claims of other professionals, so it does not oust the NCLT's jurisdiction to fix such fees as part of insolvency resolution process costs. It set aside both NCLAT and NCLT orders and remitted the matter to the NCLT to determine, as a factual matter, how much was actually owed to the appellant for the work done.
Professionals engaged during a company's insolvency process do not lose their right to be paid for work genuinely performed merely because the insolvency proceeding is later reversed: the insolvency tribunal remains the proper forum to decide and fix such dues as part of the process costs.
