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.
A company importing branded decorative electric lighting (under the brands "Diyas" and "mAntra") had its import consignments revalued by Customs authorities, who suspected the company had undervalued goods imported from a related overseas party to evade duty. The Principal Commissioner of Customs imposed a differential duty of about Rs. 9.53 lakhs on the current consignment and around Rs. 1.23 crores on past consignments, ordered confiscation with a redemption fine, and imposed penalties on the company's directors (including the appellant, Anil Kumar Anand). The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld this order, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, which require valuation methods to be applied strictly in sequence: the authorities must first attempt valuation under Rules 3 to 5 (based on comparable transaction/identical-or-similar-goods values) and can resort to Rules 7 to 9 (computed/residual value methods) only if the earlier rules genuinely cannot be applied. The Court found that data on prices of identical or similar branded imports from the UK by unrelated parties was available and could have been used under the earlier rules, yet the customs authorities skipped straight to Rules 7-9 without justification. Rejecting the argument that it should not disturb concurrent findings of fact by the authorities and tribunal, the Court held that this was not a mere factual dispute but a "fundamental mistake" in failing to follow the Rules' mandatory sequential scheme. It therefore set aside both the Commissioner's and the CESTAT's orders and sent the matter back to the Principal Commissioner of Customs to redo the valuation exercise properly, starting with Rules 3 to 5, while leaving all other arguments open for the parties to raise afresh.
Government authorities (here, customs officials) cannot skip the sequence of steps a statutory rule lays down even if they believe the end result might be the same: a decision reached by applying the wrong method, or the right method out of order, can be set aside regardless of "concurrent findings" by multiple lower authorities.
