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.
This judgment decided three connected matters together. In the lead case, Arun Kumar Jagatramka, a promoter of Gujarat NRE Coke Ltd (a company undergoing liquidation under the IBC), tried to take back control of the company by proposing a "scheme of compromise and arrangement" under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013: essentially using company law to re-acquire the company he could no longer bid for because Section 29A of the IBC disqualifies defaulting promoters from submitting resolution plans. The NCLAT held that such promoters cannot bypass their IBC ineligibility by taking the Companies Act route, and Jagatramka appealed. A second, similarly-facted appeal involved a promoter of Su-Kam Power Systems. A connected writ petition separately challenged an insolvency regulation (Regulation 2B of the Liquidation Process Regulations) that expressly barred persons ineligible under Section 29A from proposing such schemes.
The Supreme Court held that the policy rationale behind Section 29A of the IBC, keeping defaulting promoters and other undesirable persons from regaining control of a company through the back door, applies equally to a scheme of compromise or arrangement proposed under Section 230 of the Companies Act once a company has entered liquidation under the IBC. The Court reasoned that liquidation under the IBC is meant to give the company a "clean slate," and allowing a Section 29A-ineligible person to re-acquire it via a Section 230 scheme would defeat that purpose and that purpose must inform the construction of Section 230 in this special context. It therefore read the Section 29A/Section 35(1)(f) disqualification into Section 230 proceedings before the NCLT during liquidation, and upheld the validity of Regulation 2B (including its proviso barring ineligible persons), finding it a valid and merely clarificatory exercise of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India's regulation-making power. All three matters, both appeals and the writ petition, were accordingly dismissed. The Court also added a cautionary note urging the NCLT/NCLAT to exercise restraint and avoid expanding IBC procedure through judicial innovation.
A promoter (or anyone) disqualified from bidding to take back a company during formal insolvency resolution cannot use a different legal route, such as a Companies Act scheme of arrangement during liquidation, to achieve the same disqualified outcome; courts will read the underlying disqualification into the other route to prevent the insolvency framework's purpose from being circumvented.
