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.
Hindustan Zinc Limited had a captive power plant and used open access arrangements to wheel electricity from that plant to three of its own industrial units, through the distribution system of Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (AVVNL). A billing dispute arose over "unscheduled interchange" charges under their open access agreements, and the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission referred the dispute to an arbitrator under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The arbitrator ruled substantially in Hindustan Zinc's favour, but AVVNL later argued, for the first time before the High Court, in a Section 37 appeal, that the arbitrator had never had jurisdiction in the first place. The Rajasthan High Court agreed and set aside the entire arbitral award.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view that Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act only allows the State Commission to refer disputes between a licensee (the distribution company) and a generating company to arbitration: it does not cover a dispute between a licensee and a mere open-access consumer, which is instead governed by Section 42 of the Act and its own separate three-tier grievance mechanism. Since Hindustan Zinc was using its captive plant's power for its own consumption (as a consumer) rather than acting as a generating company selling power, the dispute fell outside Section 86(1)(f), making the arbitrator's appointment itself without jurisdiction and the resulting award a nullity in law. The Court also held that a jurisdictional defect of this kind can be raised at any stage, even after a party initially consented to arbitration, relying on the settled principle that a decision rendered without jurisdiction is a nullity. However, the Court clarified that the High Court should not have gone on to examine the merits of the award once it found a lack of jurisdiction, and left it open to Hindustan Zinc to pursue any other legal remedy available to it.
Consenting to an arbitrator's appointment does not cure a fundamental lack of jurisdiction: a party can challenge the very authority of an arbitrator (or any adjudicator) at any later stage, because a decision rendered without jurisdiction is treated as void from the start, not merely voidable.
