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.
Reliance Home Finance Limited (RHFL) defaulted on loans worth roughly Rs. 11,540 crore and also defaulted on debentures owed to thousands of investors. A resolution plan proposed by Authum Investment and Infrastructure Limited (AIIL) was approved by 96% of the bank lenders and, separately, by 94.55% of debenture holders who voted, but the Bombay High Court refused to approve the plan for the debenture holders because it felt it lacked the power to do so under ordinary civil procedure. This appeal was filed after the Supreme Court, in an earlier case involving RHFL's sister company (Reliance Commercial Finance Limited), had already approved a nearly identical rescue plan.
The Supreme Court found the facts of this case virtually identical to its own earlier ruling for the sister company, where small investors (holding up to a threshold amount) would recover 100% of their money under the plan, while going back to a fresh SEBI-mandated voting process would only cause delay and risk undoing gains already agreed to by an overwhelming majority of investors. Using its special constitutional power under Article 142 (which lets the Supreme Court mould relief to do complete justice in a case), the Court approved the resolution plan for all debenture holders except those who had specifically voted against it. Dissenting debenture holders were given a choice: accept the plan's terms anyway, or opt out and pursue their claims through other legal remedies. The company was directed to complete the payments by 31 March 2023.
When a rescue plan for a defaulting company has already been overwhelmingly accepted by lenders and investors, courts may use their special equitable powers to approve it quickly rather than force a fresh, time-consuming procedural round that could end up hurting the very investors the process is meant to protect, while still preserving an exit option for those who genuinely object.
