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.
Mr. Abhey Kumar Oswal, a major shareholder in the listed companies Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. and Oswal Greentech Ltd., died in 2016. Before his death he had filed a formal nomination under Section 72 of the Companies Act naming his wife, Aruna Oswal, as the person to whom his shares would vest, and she was duly registered as the shareholder. His son, Pankaj Oswal, filed a civil partition suit claiming a one-fourth share of his father's estate (including these shareholdings) and, while that suit was pending, also filed a petition before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) alleging oppression and mismanagement in the companies, even though he held only a tiny 0.03% stake, far short of the 10% shareholding ordinarily required to bring such a petition. The NCLT and the NCLAT (appellate tribunal) had both allowed the son's mismanagement case to proceed, prompting Aruna Oswal's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the lower tribunals were wrong to let the mismanagement proceedings go forward, because the son's claim to the shares (and therefore his qualifying shareholding) was itself disputed and still being decided in the pending civil partition suit. The Court declined to finally resolve the nomination-versus-inheritance question itself, holding that such a civil dispute over title to the shares must be decided by the civil court, not by a company tribunal exercising oppression/mismanagement jurisdiction. It set aside the NCLT and NCLAT orders and directed that the Section 241/242 proceedings be dropped for now, while giving the son liberty to refile them later if the civil suit is ultimately decided in his favour and his shareholding then crosses the 10% threshold.
A person cannot use a company law tribunal to litigate what is really a family inheritance or title dispute: if your right to shares is contested in a civil suit, you generally need to win that fight first (and meet statutory shareholding thresholds) before you can bring a company-law oppression/mismanagement claim; a valid shareholder nomination carries real legal weight pending resolution of competing succession claims.
