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.
Under the New Telecom Policy of 1999, mobile telecom operators who migrated from the earlier 1994 licensing regime had to pay a one-time entry fee (up to 31 July 1999) plus an ongoing annual licence fee calculated as a percentage of their Annual Gross Revenue. The telecom companies treated the pre-1999 one-time fee as capital expenditure but claimed the ongoing annual (variable) licence fee as revenue expenditure, fully deductible in the year paid under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The tax authorities disagreed, treating the variable fee too as capital in nature (deductible only through amortisation under Section 35ABB), leading to years of litigation; the Delhi High Court had split the difference, treating the fee as capital before 31 July 1999 and revenue thereafter, and the Revenue appealed that split to the Supreme Court in this batch of over 25 connected appeals.
The Supreme Court held that the licence granted under the Telegraph Act is a single, indivisible right to establish, maintain and operate telecom services, so the fee paid for it cannot be artificially split into "capital" and "revenue" portions just because payment is structured differently before and after a cut-off date. It reasoned that because failure to pay the variable annual fee results in revocation of the licence itself under Section 8 of the Telegraph Act, that fee is intrinsically tied to the right to continue in business, not a routine periodic business expense, and staggering payment over time does not change its essential capital character. Distinguishing precedents relied upon by the companies (where royalty payments were unconnected to any right to trade), the Court found the licence fee here has direct nexus with acquisition/continuation of the capital asset (the licence). It therefore set aside the Delhi High Court's split ruling (and the parallel Bombay and Karnataka High Court rulings that had followed it), holding that both the entry fee and the variable annual licence fee are capital expenditure, deductible only by amortisation under Section 35ABB, and allowed the Revenue's appeals.
A payment required to keep a business licence alive, even if paid periodically like a routine expense, will be treated as capital expenditure for tax purposes if the licence itself is a single, indivisible right and non-payment would mean losing the right to operate at all; how a payment is scheduled does not change its underlying legal character.
