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.
The appellant, an exporter of processed iron ore, had relied on the Exim (export-import) Policy of 1988-91 while entering an export contract, under which only "unprocessed" ore was ineligible for an export incentive called an "additional licence." By the time the actual exports happened (April 1990 to March 1991), a new Exim Policy of 1990-93 had come into force, under which "processed" iron ore too became an ineligible item. The exporter's claim for the additional licence was repeatedly rejected by trade authorities, and after a long litigation history including an earlier round before the Supreme Court, the Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) ultimately dismissed the exporter's writ petition, holding the export was governed by the new, less favourable policy.
The Supreme Court held that since the actual export occurred during the period the new Exim Policy 1990-93 was in force, and the appellant never challenged that new policy, the exporter was bound by it and was correctly held ineligible for the additional licence. On the exporter's promissory estoppel argument, the Court held that an export incentive is a policy benefit, not a vested right, and the government is free to modify or withdraw such incentives from time to time; promissory estoppel does not apply to prevent the government from validly changing policy. The Court also rejected the argument that denial was discriminatory merely because other exporters may have wrongly received the same benefit, holding there is no right to "negative equality" that perpetuates an illegality. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision.
A government policy incentive (like an export licence benefit) is not a vested contractual right. It can be validly changed or withdrawn, and the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be used to freeze a policy in place, nor can a party claim the same benefit merely because it may have been wrongly extended to someone else.
