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.
An arbitral award was passed against the appellant, a farmers' cooperative sugar society, in August 2016. Under the Arbitration Act, it had 90 days to challenge the award in court, extendable by a further 30 days for sufficient cause, but not beyond that. That extended 30-day window happened to expire on 24 December 2016, exactly when the trial court was closed for winter/Christmas vacation (19 December 2016 to 1 January 2017). The appellant filed its challenge on 2 January 2017, the very first day the court reopened, and asked the court to condone the delay, arguing that a law meant to prevent hardship (the "General Clauses Act" rule that lets you file on the next working day if the deadline falls when a court is closed) should apply. Both the trial court and the Karnataka High Court rejected this, holding the filing was time-barred.
The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts and dismissed the appeal. Relying on its own earlier precedent (Assam Urban Water Supply), it held that the benefit of filing on the next working day (whether under Section 4 of the Limitation Act or Section 10 of the General Clauses Act) applies only to the main, fixed statutory limitation period, not to a further "discretionary condonable period" like the extra 30 days under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, which exists solely at the court's discretion on showing sufficient cause. Since the party knew of the court's scheduled winter vacation well in advance and had 25 days available after the main limitation period expired but before the vacation began, it could not blame the court closure for its own delay. The proviso to Section 10 of the General Clauses Act also expressly excludes matters where the Limitation Act applies, further barring the appellant's argument.
When a law gives you a fixed deadline plus a limited discretionary grace period to file a case (as under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act), do not wait until the very last days of that grace period. If it happens to run out during a scheduled court holiday, you cannot automatically get an extension to the next working day, because that "next working day" benefit does not extend to discretionary grace periods, only to the main limitation period.
