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.
Amazon had invested about Rs. 1,431 crore in Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd. (FCPL), which in turn held special rights over Future Retail Limited (FRL), on the understanding that FRL's retail stores could not be sold or transferred to certain "restricted persons," including the Reliance group, without Amazon's consent. When FRL went ahead with a deal to amalgamate with the Reliance group months later, Amazon triggered arbitration under the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) rules and obtained an emergency injunction from an "Emergency Arbitrator" halting the transaction. FRL and the Biyani group treated that emergency order as a nullity and pressed ahead regardless, leading Amazon to seek its enforcement in the Delhi High Court; a single judge enforced it and found wilful violation, but a Division Bench of the High Court stayed that enforcement order, prompting cross-appeals to the Supreme Court on two questions: whether an Emergency Arbitrator's award counts as an "order" under Section 17(1) of the Arbitration Act, and whether an order enforcing such an award under Section 17(2) can itself be appealed.
The Supreme Court held, first, that Indian arbitration law gives parties full autonomy to choose institutional rules, including SIAC's Emergency Arbitrator mechanism, and that an Emergency Arbitrator's interim award is indeed an order made under Section 17(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, fully binding and enforceable like any other arbitral interim order; a party cannot participate in such proceedings, lose, and then simply call the award a "nullity" to escape it. Second, the Court held that no appeal lies under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act against an order enforcing an Emergency Arbitrator's award under Section 17(2): Section 37 is an exhaustive, narrowly worded list of appealable orders that covers orders granting or refusing interim measures under Section 17(1), not orders enforcing them under Section 17(2), and the ordinary Civil Procedure Code's appeal provisions cannot be imported to fill that gap since the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code. Since the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court had wrongly entertained an appeal against the enforcement order, its two orders staying enforcement were set aside, and all interim orders passed by the Supreme Court in the interim stood vacated, effectively meaning the Single Judge's order enforcing the Emergency Arbitrator's injunction against the Future-Reliance deal stood restored.
An award or interim order from an "Emergency Arbitrator" appointed under institutional arbitration rules (like SIAC) is legally binding in India just like any other arbitral order, and parties cannot dodge it by unilaterally declaring it void, but importantly, the law also strictly limits which arbitration-related orders can be appealed, so an order merely enforcing such an award cannot itself be challenged in a further appeal.
