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.
The respondents, a husband and wife who were Amway distributors ("Amway Business Owners") and both US nationals habitually resident in the USA, had a dispute with Amway India after their distributor account was reclassified, cutting off their commission income. When settlement talks with Amway failed, they invoked the arbitration clause in their distributorship agreement and, when Amway did not nominate an arbitrator, approached the Delhi High Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to have an arbitrator appointed. Amway argued the Delhi High Court had no jurisdiction because, since the respondents were foreign nationals resident abroad, this was an "international commercial arbitration" under Section 2(1)(f) of the Act, which only the Supreme Court (not a High Court) can handle; the High Court rejected this argument and appointed an arbitrator itself.
The Supreme Court held that the definition of "international commercial arbitration" under Section 2(1)(f) turns on the nationality/residence of the parties to the dispute, not on whether the dispute itself has any other "international flavour" or on where the foreign party's business is conducted. Since the respondents were US nationals habitually resident in the USA, the arbitration qualified as an international commercial arbitration regardless of the fact that their distributorship business was carried on in India, meaning only the Supreme Court, not the Delhi High Court, had jurisdiction under Section 11 to appoint the arbitrator. The Court therefore allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order, declining the respondents' request to use Article 142 to appoint an arbitrator directly and instead leaving them to approach the Supreme Court afresh under the correct provision.
Whether a High Court or the Supreme Court has the power to appoint an arbitrator depends strictly on the nationality and habitual residence of the parties involved in the dispute: if even one party is a foreign national or non-resident, the matter becomes an "international commercial arbitration" that only the Supreme Court can handle, no matter where the underlying business activity actually takes place.
