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 respondent company manufactured and erected prefabricated steel buildings, paying service tax under the head "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service" while separately claiming CENVAT credit on excise duty paid on its building materials. The tax department found this activity was really a "Works Contract Service" (a composite contract combining goods and services), for which special valuation rules (Rule 2A of the Service Tax Determination of Value Rules, 2006, or an optional Composition Scheme) apply and which do not permit claiming CENVAT credit on the goods component. The department issued show-cause notices disallowing roughly Rs. 112 crore of CENVAT credit and demanding recovery of short-paid tax; the CESTAT tribunal ruled in the company's favour, holding it could pay tax on the whole contract value and still claim full CENVAT credit, prompting the Revenue's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the CESTAT was wrong. Where a contract is genuinely a "works contract" involving both goods and services, the assessee must value and pay service tax only on the service component as computed under Rule 2A (or opt for the Composition Scheme), and cannot pay tax on the entire composite contract value while also claiming CENVAT credit on the goods/input side, since that would make Rule 2A and the Composition Scheme redundant. The Court set aside the CESTAT's order but remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to re-compute the tax demand correctly under Rule 2A (since the company had not opted for the Composition Scheme) and to separately decide the unresolved question of whether an extended limitation period could be invoked, directing this be completed within three months. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs, and demand for one limited period (January-May 2007) was held unsustainable.
A business performing a genuine "works contract" (mixing goods supply with construction/erection services) cannot pay service tax on the full composite value and separately claim input tax credit on the goods portion. It must follow the statutory valuation rules (Rule 2A) or elect the Composition Scheme, and cannot pick whichever combination is most beneficial outside the framework the law provides.
