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.
Integrated Sales Service Ltd. (ISS), a Hong Kong company, had a representation agreement with an Indian company, DMC, under which ISS earned commission for helping sell DMC's goods. A dispute arose and ISS invoked arbitration in Kansas City, USA (under Delaware law), naming not just DMC but also its director and related companies, including Gemini Bay Transcription Pvt. Ltd., as respondents, alleging they were used as alter egos/instrumentalities to divert commission away from ISS. The arbitrator ruled against all respondents and awarded substantial damages. When ISS sought to enforce this foreign award in India, the appellants (non-signatories to the original arbitration agreement) resisted enforcement before the Bombay High Court, which ruled in favour of enforcement, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the appellants had failed to prove any of the narrow statutory grounds under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that would justify refusing enforcement of a foreign award. It held that whether a non-signatory could be bound by an arbitration agreement/award under the "alter ego" or "group of companies" doctrine was a question the arbitrator had already examined and decided by applying the governing (Delaware) law, and that an Indian enforcement court does not re-open or re-examine the merits of such findings: its role under Section 48 is limited to checking specific, narrow defences (such as lack of proper notice, incapacity, or conflict with fundamental Indian public policy). Since none of those defences were made out, and the damages awarded were not shocking to the court's conscience, the appeals were dismissed and the foreign award was held enforceable.
Once a foreign arbitral award is made, Indian courts asked to enforce it will not re-examine the arbitrator's findings on the merits (including findings that a company or individual who never signed the arbitration agreement is still bound as an "alter ego"): enforcement can only be resisted on a few narrow, specific legal grounds.
