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.
This batch of over 100 connected appeals addressed a recurring tax dispute: when an Indian resident (an end-user, distributor, or reseller) pays a foreign software manufacturer or supplier for the right to use "shrink-wrapped"/licensed computer software (such as under an End User License Agreement), is that payment "royalty" for the use of copyright, which would legally require the Indian payer to deduct tax at source under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act? The lead case involved Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd., an Indian company that imported shrink-wrapped software directly from the USA. Tax authorities treated the payments as royalty and penalized the company for not deducting TDS; the Karnataka High Court had sided with the tax department (following its earlier Samsung Electronics ruling) in several cases, while the Delhi High Court had ruled in favour of the assessees in others, creating conflicting precedents that the Supreme Court was asked to resolve.
The Supreme Court held that under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) and their definition of "royalty," payments made by Indian end-users or distributors for the mere right to use software, without any transfer of the underlying copyright itself (such as rights to reproduce, modify, or commercially exploit the software code), do not constitute royalty. Since a EULA or distribution agreement typically only grants a limited, non-exclusive license to use the software as-is (like buying a copyrighted book, not the copyright in it), no "use of or right to use any copyright" takes place. Because the DTAA definition, being more beneficial to the taxpayer, prevails over the wider domestic Income Tax Act definition, there was no obligation to deduct TDS under Section 195, and the Karnataka High Court's Samsung-line of judgments were overruled, while the Delhi High Court's judgments favouring assessees were upheld. This single ruling settled the law uniformly across all four categories of software transactions considered (direct end-user purchase, resale by Indian distributors, resale by foreign distributors, and software bundled with hardware).
Buying a license to merely use software (like most off-the-shelf or cloud software purchases) is legally different from buying the copyright in that software; such routine software purchases from foreign suppliers do not attract India's royalty-withholding tax rules, which brought much-needed clarity and relief for businesses and individuals who import or resell licensed software.
