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.
10422 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.
This was the lead case in a large batch of appeals filed by the Income Tax Department, all raising a common legal question: whether Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, which lays down a formula for computing the expenditure disallowed under Section 14A on income that doesn't form part of total income (like certain dividend income), applies retrospectively to assessment years before it was notified in 2008. In the lead case, the assessee (Essar Teleholdings) had claimed exemption on dividend income for assessment year 2003-04; the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and then the Bombay High Court held that Rule 8D could not be applied to that year since it only came into force later, following an earlier Bombay High Court ruling in the Godrej & Boyce case. The Revenue appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that Rule 8D, introduced with effect from 24 March 2008, operates prospectively and cannot be applied to assessment years before it was notified: a subordinate legislation like a tax rule is ordinarily not retrospective unless it clearly says so, and Rule 8D contained no such indication. The Court noted that its own earlier decision in the related Godrej & Boyce case (2017) had expressly left the retrospectivity question open for Revenue's appeals to decide, which is what this batch of appeals did. Looking at the legislative history, explanatory notes to the Finance Bill, 2006, and a 2016 amendment that replaced the Rule 8D formula altogether, the Court concluded that Parliament's own actions confirmed Rule 8D's prospective character. It accordingly upheld the Bombay High Court's dismissal of the Department's appeal and dismissed all the Revenue's appeals in this batch, including the lead case.
When a tax rule changes how a calculation is made, it generally only applies going forward from the date it is notified: tax authorities cannot apply a new computational rule to re-open or recompute assessments for years before that rule existed, unless the rule itself clearly says it is retrospective.
