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.
A spirit manufacturer holding a D-1 licence wanted a CS-1 licence (needed to manufacture, bottle, and wholesale-supply country spirit) in Madhya Pradesh. The excise authorities rejected its application solely because it had not participated in a separate tender process for supply of country spirit, even though the company argued that neither the Excise Act nor the governing Rules actually required tender participation as a precondition for a CS-1 licence, and that several other similarly-placed distillers had still been allowed to take part in the tender despite also lacking a CS-1 licence. The High Court dismissed the company's challenge, holding that area-allotment was a necessary precondition for a CS-1 licence and that there is no fundamental right to trade in liquor.
The Supreme Court held that neither Section 18 of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 nor Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Country Spirit Rules, 1995 made tender participation a precondition for grant of a CS-1 licence: Rule 3 merely provides that a CS-1 licensee will subsequently be allotted an operating area by the Excise Commissioner. The rejection of the appellant's licence application purely for not having joined the tender was therefore arbitrary and not grounded in the actual statutory scheme. While reaffirming that no one has an absolute right to trade in liquor, the Court held that once the State chooses to grant such licences to some parties, it must do so consistently with Article 14's guarantee against arbitrary or discriminatory state action. It set aside the High Court's judgment and directed the authorities to reconsider the licence application strictly per the Act and Rules, without insisting on the extra-statutory tender-participation condition.
Even in a field like liquor trade where there is no fundamental right to do business, government authorities cannot impose licensing conditions that go beyond what the governing statute and rules actually require: any such extra, unauthorized condition is arbitrary and can be struck down under Article 14.
