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.
A news channel ("Day & Night News") had an agreement with a group of Multi System Operators (MSOs) in Punjab and Chandigarh to carry its channel on cable TV, but the MSOs terminated the agreement on 30 days' notice. The Competition Commission of India found, after investigation, that the MSO group held an 85% market share in that region and had abused its dominant position by denying the broadcaster market access without genuine justification, in breach of Section 4 of the Competition Act, and imposed a penalty of about Rs. 8.4 crore. The Competition Appellate Tribunal overturned this, holding that a broadcaster and an MSO are not competitors, so there could be no violation of Sections 3 or 4 at all, and the Commission appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the Appellate Tribunal's reasoning was too narrow: denial of "market access" under Section 4(2)(c) of the Act is not limited to disputes between direct competitors, and a dominant MSO group denying a broadcaster access to its distribution network falls squarely within that provision since the broadcaster cannot reach consumers without it. On the facts, the Court agreed that the MSO group was dominant and had breached Section 4(2)(c) by terminating the agreement without genuine justification. However, examining actual television rating data placed on record, the Court found that the broadcaster's own channel ratings were, in fact, far lower than those of other news channels (contrary to the Commission's finding that ratings were "almost equal"), which explained and partly justified the commercial decision to terminate. On this basis, while upholding the finding of a breach of Section 4(2)(c), the Court held that no monetary penalty should be imposed on the facts of this case, allowed the appeal, and set aside both the Appellate Tribunal's judgment and the Commission's penalty order.
Under competition law, "denial of market access" by a dominant player can violate the law even where the complainant and the dominant entity are not direct competitors, but a finding of abuse of dominance does not automatically mean a penalty must follow if the underlying commercial justification, once properly verified against the actual evidence, substantially explains the conduct.
