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.
An individual, Srikant Mantri, held a stock broker's registration with the Calcutta Stock Exchange (CSE) and had paid his registration fees. He later transferred his CSE membership card to an already-existing company, Mantri Finance Limited (later renamed GPSK Capital), and became a director (though not a whole-time director) of that company. The company then claimed it should be exempted from paying fresh registration fees to SEBI for the period Srikant Mantri had already paid for, relying on a SEBI regulation that gives such a fee-continuity benefit when an individual's or partnership's brokerage membership is "converted" into a corporate entity. SEBI rejected the claim, and the Securities Appellate Tribunal upheld that rejection; the company then appealed to the Supreme Court (and SEBI cross-appealed on a related computation issue).
The Supreme Court held that the fee-exemption benefit under Paragraph 4 of Schedule III to the SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations applies only where an individual or partnership itself converts into a corporate entity and continues the same brokerage business, with the individual remaining a whole-time director holding at least 40% of the company's shares for three years. Here, Srikant Mantri did not convert his own proprietorship into a company; instead, he simply transferred his membership card to an already-existing, separate company and became a mere director (not a whole-time director) in it. Since there was no genuine "continuity" between the individual and the corporate entity as the regulation required, the Court agreed with SEBI and the Tribunal that the fee-exemption did not apply. On the separate, previously-settled question of whether a broker needs one SEBI registration or multiple registrations to operate on different stock exchanges, the Court applied its own recent precedent holding that a separate registration certificate and fee is required for each exchange. The company's appeal was dismissed, and SEBI's connected appeal was allowed.
A regulatory fee exemption tied to genuine "conversion" of a business form (such as sole proprietor into a company) will not extend to a case where someone simply transfers a licence or membership to a pre-existing, unrelated company: regulators and courts will look closely at whether real continuity of the same person's business exists, not just a paper transfer.
