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.
Amtek Auto Limited went through corporate insolvency resolution under the IBC, and after an earlier resolution applicant (Liberty House Group) failed to honour its plan, Deccan Value Investors LP (DVI) was eventually declared the highest evaluated resolution applicant and its plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in February 2020. When the matter reached the NCLT for final approval, DVI, citing the financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, sought a two-month extension to re-examine and renegotiate the plan's terms rather than furnish the balance Rs. 150 crore performance bank guarantee, which the Supreme Court rejected by order dated 18 June 2020, warning that any further such conduct would be treated as contempt. After the NCLT nonetheless approved the plan, DVI failed to provide the guarantee or join the implementation committee, invoked a "force majeure" clause to terminate the plan, and appealed to the NCLAT, prompting the CoC to file a contempt petition, while DVI separately sought rectification of the 18 June order, claiming it rested on factual misconceptions.
The Supreme Court dismissed DVI's rectification application, holding that regardless of the precise phrasing used in the 18 June 2020 order, the substance was correct: DVI's application had in effect sought to renege on its approved resolution plan, and DVI had been a clear beneficiary of the series of time extensions the Court had granted during the process. On the contempt petition, however, the Court held that while DVI's conduct, repeatedly pressing a force majeure plea even after its application was rejected, and failing to furnish the guarantee or join the implementation committee, clearly lacked bona fides, contempt jurisdiction must be exercised with circumspection and requires willful, unambiguous disobedience of a court order rather than merely raising an untenable legal plea or defaulting on contractual obligations (which can instead attract other legal consequences). The Court accordingly dismissed the contempt petition too, but on DVI's own submission directed that DVI shall not raise any force-majeure plea in its pending NCLAT appeal, and directed the NCLAT to dispose of that appeal within one month.
Contempt of court is reserved for clear, willful defiance of a specific court order: a party's bad-faith conduct or default under a separate contractual/regulatory obligation (even one shaped by prior court directions) does not automatically amount to contempt if it is pursued through legitimate legal remedies like an appeal, though courts can still neutralise bad-faith defences (like an unsustainable force majeure plea) going forward.
