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.
Infrastructure companies like Hindustan Construction Company, which build public projects such as roads and dams for government bodies, often win arbitration awards against those bodies, only to have the awards automatically stayed the moment the government challenges them in court: a process that could take over six years. In 2015, Parliament had fixed this "automatic-stay" problem through Section 36 of the Arbitration Act, but a 2019 amendment (inserting Section 87 and repealing Section 26 of the 2015 Amendment Act) effectively revived automatic stays for a large set of ongoing cases. The companies challenged this 2019 change as unconstitutional, arguing it reintroduced the very problem Parliament had just fixed, while also leaving them exposed to being dragged into insolvency proceedings by their own unpaid suppliers because the award money remained frozen.
The Supreme Court held that reviving the automatic-stay regime through Section 87 and the repeal of Section 26 was "manifestly arbitrary" and violated Article 14 of the Constitution, because it reversed a beneficial reform without any rational justification, created hardship for award-holders already suffering a combination of long-delayed litigation and now-renewed insolvency risk, and disturbed settled expectations by applying retrospectively. The Court therefore struck down both the insertion of Section 87 into the Arbitration Act, 1996 and the repeal of Section 26 of the 2015 Amendment Act. It separately rejected a challenge to a related government scheme that allowed contractors to withdraw 75% of disputed award amounts against a bank guarantee, finding the 10% annual guarantee requirement was not arbitrary. All the writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.
A law or amendment that reverses a beneficial legal reform without any rational basis, especially retrospectively and to the serious detriment of those who relied on the earlier position, can be struck down by courts as "manifestly arbitrary" and unconstitutional, even though legislatures otherwise have wide power to amend laws.
