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.
Franklin Templeton Mutual Fund's trustees decided to wind up six debt schemes (Low Duration Fund, Ultra Short Bond Fund, Short Term Income Plan, Credit Risk Fund, Dynamic Accrual Fund and Income Opportunities Fund) and sought unitholders' consent for winding up, as required under the SEBI Mutual Fund Regulations. A Karnataka High Court Division Bench had ruled that such consent required approval from a majority of all unitholders of each scheme (not just those who voted), and this interpretation was challenged before the Supreme Court by the trustees, asset management company and SEBI, while objecting unitholders defended the High Court's reading. Large sums (over Rs. 17,000 crores in securities) remained to be realised and distributed to investors while the dispute over the validity of the consent process was pending.
The Supreme Court held that for the purpose of Regulation 18(15)(c), "consent of the unitholders" for winding up means consent of a majority of unitholders who actually participated in the poll, not consent of a majority of every unitholder in the scheme, which would make winding up almost impossible to achieve. On that basis, the Court rejected the objections to the poll results and confirmed that unitholders of the six schemes had validly consented to wind up the schemes. The Court, with the parties' consent, had earlier appointed SBI Funds Management Pvt. Ltd. as an independent agency to carry out the liquidation and distribution process, and it directed that payments to unitholders be made in tranches without waiting for every security to be liquidated, while leaving open other disputed questions such as alleged fraud/misfeasance by the fund managers for separate consideration.
When a law requires "unitholder" or "member" consent for a collective decision like winding up a fund, courts will generally interpret that as consent of those who actually vote, not an near-impossible unanimous-or-majority-of-all-members threshold, and in large investor-protection disputes, courts may step in to appoint neutral administrators to protect ordinary investors' money while the underlying legal dispute is resolved.
