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.
The appellant company agreed to buy a flat from the legal heirs of a deceased person, and under the agreement was put into possession pending full payment. A former director of the company, who had been using the flat and was later voted out as director, refused to vacate it, claiming a separate oral understanding with the original (now deceased) owner that he would eventually get the property. The company filed a criminal complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act (wrongful withholding of company property) and separately sought an interim order under Section 630(2) directing him to hand over possession while the complaint was still pending; the trial Magistrate and Sessions Judge both granted this interim relief, but the Calcutta High Court quashed it using its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, reasoning the property was never allotted to him as a perquisite of service and the company had no proven title.
The Supreme Court held the High Court was wrong to quash the interim possession order. It ruled that pendency of a related civil suit (where a temporary injunction maintained status quo) does not bar a Section 630 criminal complaint or interim relief under Section 630(2), since the two proceedings address different questions, and a temporary injunction in a civil suit does not defeat the company's right to pursue criminal remedies. The Court also held Section 630(2) relief can be granted before the main complaint is finally decided, that Section 630 does not require the company to prove full legal title to the property, and that there is no requirement the property have been given to the ex-director specifically as a service perquisite: what matters is that he held it in his capacity as an officer and continued to withhold it without an independent legal right after ceasing to be a director. Finding no exceptional illegality that would justify the High Court's use of its inherent Section 482 powers against this interlocutory order, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the interim order directing recovery of possession, while directing the underlying Section 630(1) trial be completed quickly and clarifying that if the civil suit is later decided in the ex-director's favour, possession would have to be restored to him.
A company can use the Companies Act's summary criminal procedure to recover property wrongfully withheld by a former officer even while a related civil ownership dispute is pending elsewhere, and High Courts should not use their inherent powers to quash interim orders in such proceedings absent genuine illegality or jurisdictional error: a mere factual disagreement with a lower court's assessment is not enough.
