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.
Company & Insolvency LawSupreme Court of India
Greenopolis Welfare Confederation v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1070
Fraud by the party who originally triggered a company's insolvency process doesn't automatically undo the entire process for everyone, once other genuine creditors and stakeholders (like homebuyers) are involved, the adjudicating body must weigh whether continuing the process still serves them, rather than simply cancelling it outright.
Decided 30 Sept 2026View details
Banking & Debt Recovery LawSupreme Court of India
Sterling Holiday Resorts Limited v. M/S P.M. Associates & Ors.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1071
The legal principle protecting the finality of confirmed auction sales exists to reward a lawfully conducted process, not to shield a sale riddled with procedural violations: courts can and will unwind even a long-settled auction if the underlying process was illegal.
Decided 30 Sept 2026View details
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India
Sainaba v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1069
For a cheque-bounce case, correctly addressing and dispatching the statutory demand notice is enough to trigger the legal presumption of valid service: the accused cannot escape liability merely because someone else at the same address received the notice on their behalf.
Decided 30 Sept 2026View details
Arbitration & Commercial LawSupreme Court of India
M/S Awadhesh Singh Gautam v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1072
A government authority cannot bypass a contract's own procedural safeguards, like prior notice and a designated approving officer, to recover a disputed, unproven claim by simply withholding payments legitimately due under a separate contract.
Decided 30 Sept 2026View details
Civil Property & InheritanceDelhi High Court
Jagdish Kumar Arora vs. Dinesh Mittal
Regular First Appeal · 2026:DHC:8466
Occupying commercial premises, taking the keys, and carrying out renovation work can create tenant-like possession obligations even without ever signing a formal registered lease: verbal/WhatsApp-documented agreements plus conduct can be enough to lose a possession dispute.
Decided 29 Sept 2026View details
Criminal LawDelhi High Court
Dinesh Chand Upadhyay & Ors. vs. State/NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8489
Courts will not permit a private settlement to extinguish criminal proceedings for serious sexual offences once the complainant has already testified in support of the prosecution at trial.
Decided 29 Sept 2026View details
Arbitration & Commercial LawDelhi High Court
Mathur & Kapre Associates Private Limited vs. Union of India
A recurring practical reminder: parties seeking to enforce arbitral awards in Delhi must ensure stamp duty is paid within one month of the award, or risk having enforcement proceedings stalled on this technical but mandatory ground.
Decided 29 Sept 2026View details
Criminal LawDelhi High Court
Rajender Kumar & Ors. vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8483
A private "compromise" between accused and complainant cannot override a serious criminal case once the survivor has testified in support of the prosecution: courts will not quash FIRs involving grave offences (especially against women) merely because parties have settled privately.
Decided 29 Sept 2026View details
Criminal LawDelhi High Court
Robin Kumar and Others vs. The State and Another
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8480
A "compromise" in a matrimonial criminal case is unlikely to result in quashing of the FIR while the underlying marriage itself remains legally undissolved: courts want to see the matrimonial status resolved first.
Decided 29 Sept 2026View details
6228 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.
Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+
Legal 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 ___).
How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+
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.
Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+
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.
Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+
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.
Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+
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.
What is Legal Case Shots?+
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.
Tax & Customs LawSupreme Court of India
Commissioner of Service Tax-III, Mumbai v. M/s Vodafone India Ltd. and Ors.
Civil Appeal · 2025 INSC 914Decided 6 May 2025
Civil Appeal Nos. 10815-10819 of 2014 (with a large batch of connected appeals including C.A. Nos. 5252/2015, 5307/2015, 6556/2015, 2402-2403/2016, 571-572/2016, 10885/2016, 3692/2017, 1469/2017, 9152/2017, 4009/2018, 8045-8046/2018, 9140/2018, 10349/2018, 9745/2018, 10071/2018, 11837-11838/2018, 1440/2019, 4959/2019, 7483/2019, 9008-9009/2019, 2634/2020, 3546-3549/2020, 2424/2022, 12468-12471/2024, and others)
This was a large batch of appeals filed by the Revenue (Service Tax Department) against multiple telecom and services companies: led by Vodafone India Ltd. and including group entities that provided services (such as international connectivity/roaming support) to overseas customers like Verizon Communications' US entity. In each case, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) had ruled in favour of the companies, holding that these services were genuinely "exported" out of India (since the recipient was located abroad and payment was received in convertible foreign exchange), meaning no service tax was payable and CENVAT credit on related inputs was rightly claimed. The Revenue challenged these findings, arguing that because the services were actually performed/delivered from India, they should not qualify as exports.
Decision Breakdown
Spanning the period 2003 to 2014 during which the "export of services" rules changed several times (Export of Service Rules 2005, and later Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules plus the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012), the Court examined the specific contractual relationships, for instance, that Vodafone/Verizon-linked entities billed and were paid directly by their foreign counterpart on a principal-to-principal basis, with the recipient located outside India. It rejected the Revenue's late attempt to recharacterise the arrangement as an "intermediary service" (which would not qualify as an export), finding no factual basis for that claim at any earlier stage. The Court held that CESTAT had correctly applied the tests of "location of recipient" and "payment in convertible foreign exchange," and that these were essentially factual findings not shown to be perverse. All of the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, upholding the benefit of export-of-service treatment (and associated CENVAT credit) for the companies.
Lesson Learnt
For service tax purposes, a service can validly be treated as an "export", exempt from tax, even if performed by a person located in India, so long as the actual recipient of the service is located abroad and payment is received in convertible foreign exchange; the location of performance is not, on its own, determinative, and tax authorities cannot introduce new legal theories (like "intermediary service") for the first time on appeal without a factual foundation.
