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.
Sasan Power Ltd. (the first respondent) was the special-purpose vehicle set up to build the Sasan Ultra Mega Power Project, an integrated coal-fired power project with its own captive coal mines, selling power to several state distribution utilities ("procurers," including Haryana Power Purchase Centre) under a long-term Power Purchase Agreement. Sasan Power had to import mining equipment for its captive coal mines because such equipment was not available in India, and initially expected a nil rate of customs duty available to mega power projects. However, an Office Memorandum (OM) issued by the Ministry of Power on 17.06.2011 clarified that the customs duty exemption applied only to power-generation equipment, not mining equipment, causing Madhya Pradesh's Energy Department to refuse the recommendation letter Sasan Power needed to claim the exemption; Sasan Power ended up paying substantial customs duty (over Rs. 361 crore) on the mining equipment. Sasan Power claimed this OM amounted to a "Change in Law" under Article 13.1.1 of the PPA, entitling it to pass the extra cost on to the procurers; the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity had partly ruled in its favour, prompting the procurers to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed analysis of the PPA's definitions of "Law," "Project," "power station" and "captive coal mine," and of the original 2002 customs notification exempting mega power project equipment. It held that the 2011 OM did not itself change any law. It merely clarified the Ministry of Power's pre-existing understanding that the customs exemption was confined to power-generation equipment and never covered mining equipment for captive coal mines. Since there was no proof that mining equipment had ever actually been exempted before the OM, there was no "change" in the legal position at all, and therefore the conditions for invoking the Change in Law clause under Article 13.1.1 were not met. The Court allowed the procurers' appeals, set aside the Tribunal's order, and extended the benefit of its ruling even to three respondent distribution companies that had not filed their own appeals, since the litigation and the PPA were common to all of them.
A "Change in Law" clause in a commercial contract is triggered only by an actual change in the legal or regulatory position after the contract is signed: a government clarification that simply restates or explains an exemption's pre-existing scope, without altering it, does not qualify, and a business cannot use such a clause to shift costs arising from its own mistaken assumption about the law.
