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.
9257 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.
M.S. Creations, an exporter, held a Shipments (Comprehensive Risk) Policy from the Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC) to insure against a foreign buyer's failure to pay for exported goods. It shipped handloom goods worth about Rs 64 lakh to a buyer in Ivory Coast, routed for payment through a bank that ECGC had approved as a substitute collecting bank. That bank released the shipping documents to the buyer's side without ever confirming payment, and the exporter was never paid. When ECGC refused the exporter's insurance claim (citing the exporter's inability to produce certain documents), the exporter won before the State and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions, and ECGC appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Court examined the policy's exclusion clause, which denied ECGC's liability for losses "arising from... any act or default on the part of... a collecting bank." It found that the substitute bank had indeed defaulted, releasing the original shipping documents to the buyer's representative without receiving acceptance or payment, in a transaction it later claimed it couldn't even process. This meant the loss fell squarely within the policy's exclusion, so the Consumer Commissions had been legally wrong to hold ECGC liable merely because ECGC had separately paid a guarantee claim to the exporter's bank under a different policy: that payment was to protect the bank's own exposure and did not amount to an admission of liability to the exporter. The Court allowed ECGC's appeal and set aside the Consumer Commissions' orders on the point of law. However, exercising its special constitutional power under Article 142, since the exporter was itself an innocent victim of the foreign buyer's fraud, with no complicity shown, and had already received and spent the money under the lower orders, the Court directed that no recovery be made from the exporter despite the appeal being allowed.
An insurance exclusion clause for "default of the collecting bank" can defeat even a seemingly sympathetic claim, but the Supreme Court can still use its special Article 142 power to protect an innocent party from having to repay money already received, even after formally ruling against them on the legal question.
