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.
Private companies operating major airports (Delhi, Mumbai, and Hyderabad International Airports) were authorised under Section 22A of the Airports Authority of India Act to collect a "User Development Fee" (UDF) from every departing passenger, to fund airport upgradation and development. The service tax department demanded service tax on these UDF collections, treating them as payment for a taxable "airport service." The CESTAT (tax tribunal) ruled in favour of the airport operators, holding UDF was not liable to service tax, relying on the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in Consumer Online Foundation v. Union of India, which had characterized UDF as being in the nature of a statutory tax/cess rather than a fee for services rendered. The tax department appealed this to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that under Section 67 of the Finance Act, service tax can only be levied on an amount charged as consideration for an identifiable taxable service. There must be a direct "nexus" between the amount charged and the service provided (citing its earlier ruling in Commissioner of Service Tax v. Bhayana Builders). Relying heavily on its binding precedent in Consumer Online Foundation, the Court reaffirmed that UDF collected under Section 22A of the AAI Act is fundamentally different from ordinary service charges collected under Section 22 of the same Act: UDF is collected from passengers "dehors" (independent of) any facility they actually receive, funds future airport development rather than paying for a present service, is deposited in a controlled escrow account rather than the operator's general revenue, and has no contractual basis between the passenger and the airport operator. Since UDF is, in substance, a statutory levy or cess for a public purpose (raising revenue for airport infrastructure) rather than consideration for a service actually rendered to the paying passenger, it falls outside the definition of taxable value under Section 67 and cannot attract service tax, regardless of the fact that it is collected by a private operator and not deposited in the government treasury. The Court accordingly dismissed all the revenue's appeals, upholding the CESTAT orders, with no order as to costs.
Not every amount collected by a service provider is automatically subject to service tax. The law requires a direct link between the charge and an actual service rendered to the payer; a statutory levy collected for a public/future purpose (like airport development), rather than as payment for a specific present-day service, is treated as a tax or cess and stands outside the service tax net.
