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.
A company (Stallion Knitwear) defaulted on its loan from the State Bank of India, and the Bank's Authorised Officer took possession of its pledged machinery and put it up for e-auction under the SARFAESI Act. The respondent won the auction with a bid of about Rs. 1.23 crore and paid 25% of the price (Rs. 30.75 lakh) immediately, agreeing to pay the remaining 75% within two weeks. He failed to pay by the deadline, was granted a short extension, but still could not arrange the funds: partly because the borrower had meanwhile gone to the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) seeking to stop the sale. The Bank cancelled the sale and forfeited his 25% deposit. The respondent then went to the Madras High Court seeking a refund of the forfeited amount, and the High Court ruled in his favour, prompting the Bank to appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the forfeiture of the 25% deposit was validly authorised under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules framed under the SARFAESI Act, which specifically provide for forfeiture when a successful bidder fails to pay the balance sale price in time, and that an auction-purchaser who bids with open eyes takes on the risk of losing this deposit if he defaults, regardless of whether his default was due to his own inability to pay or complications from parallel litigation by the borrower. On the separate question of whether the Bank was unjustly enriched by keeping the forfeited money without actually suffering a loss, the Court held that forfeiture under a valid statutory rule, aimed at protecting public money lent by a public sector bank, is not "unjust enrichment" merely because the Bank cannot point to a matching loss. Courts exercising writ jurisdiction should not use equitable sympathy to override a clear statutory consequence, especially to favour a private bidder's interest over the public interest in loan recovery. The High Court's order directing a refund was set aside and the Bank's appeal was allowed, with the Court also noting that the writ petition itself was arguably not maintainable given the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
If you bid in a bank e-auction and fail to pay the balance amount on time, you can lose your deposit even if the delay partly resulted from someone else's court case, because forfeiture rules under laws like SARFAESI exist to protect public money and are enforced regardless of individual hardship or the Bank's own actual loss.
