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.
In 1998, containers of imported synthetic woollen rags arrived at Cochin Port but were not cleared by the consignees, partly because Customs disputed the declared contents, leaving the goods stuck in the port's limited storage space for years. The Tariff Authority for Major Ports had fixed 75 days as the period after which ground rent/demurrage on uncleared containers could shift from the Port Trust to the shipping agents, but a dispute arose over how far that liability could legally extend and whether the Port Trust itself was obliged to destuff (empty) containers and return them. The Kerala High Court ruled on this and the Cochin Port Trust, along with several shipping agents, appealed to the Supreme Court; a reference order in 2018 asked a larger bench to settle the underlying legal questions, and this batch of appeals was the final hearing.
The Supreme Court held that only the owner of the goods (or whoever is actually entitled to them) can ultimately be made liable for demurrage/ground rent, not the shipping agent indefinitely. It also held that the Port Trust has a legal duty to destuff every container entrusted to it and return the empty container to whichever party is entitled to it, within as short a period as is practically feasible given the port's own storage capacity and workload: this period is to be assessed case-by-case rather than fixed rigidly. The Court read the word "may" in Sections 61 and 62 of the Major Port Trusts Act as not meaning "shall," while cautioning that a Port Trust, being "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution, must still act reasonably and try to sell uncleared goods within a reasonable time. On the facts, since the steamer agents had already paid ground rent (including beyond 75 days) and the High Court had already directed recomputation and refund, the Court declined to disturb the outcome and disposed of the appeals.
When goods or containers get stuck at a port due to a dispute with customs or clearing parties, liability for storage/demurrage charges is not automatically open-ended for the carrier: ports have their own legal duty to act within a reasonable time, and ultimate responsibility tracks back to whoever actually owns or is entitled to the goods.
