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.
Merino Panel Product Ltd., a manufacturer of decorative laminates, sold its goods both to independent buyers and to two related companies (its holding company and a company under common control) at lower prices. An excise audit found this undervaluation led to a shortfall in excise duty of over Rs. 3 crore, and the Revenue issued a show-cause notice invoking a "residuary" valuation rule (Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules) along with another rule meant for a different scenario. The Excise Tribunal (CESTAT) struck down the notice as defective, holding the Revenue had used the wrong method contrary to its own departmental circular, which prescribed a specific formula for cases involving sales to both related and unrelated buyers.
The Supreme Court reinstated the Revenue's demand. It held that citing an incorrect legal provision in a show-cause notice does not invalidate it so long as the underlying power to issue the notice actually exists. On the substantive question, the Court clarified that departmental circulars bind the tax authorities (who cannot depart from their own instructions) but do not bind courts, which must independently interpret the law; here, however, the Court found no real conflict between the circular and the statute. It held that where a "normal price" charged to independent buyers is available, that price can be used as the benchmark to value the related-party sales for excise purposes, and confirmed the extra duty demand, but waived the interest and penalty, since even the Revenue itself had been unclear about the correct valuation method.
A tax notice is not automatically invalid merely because it cites the wrong provision, so long as the tax authority genuinely had the power to act; and when a business sells the same goods to both independent and related buyers, the price charged to independent buyers can be used as the fair benchmark for valuing the related-party sales.
