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.
A Porsche car belonging to the respondent company and insured by the appellant was completely destroyed in a high-speed accident in Delhi in December 2007, in which the car hit a footpost, overturned and caught fire; the driver was later convicted for rash and negligent driving. The insurer repudiated the own-damage claim, invoking a policy clause excluding liability if the vehicle was being driven under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, relying on a medical report noting the smell of alcohol on the driver. The State Consumer Commission upheld the repudiation, but the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) reversed it, finding insufficient evidence that the driver was actually "under the influence" of alcohol, prompting the insurer's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that "driving under the influence of alcohol" for purposes of the exclusion clause does not require proof of the precise quantity consumed or a formal breath/blood-alcohol test; it can be established through circumstantial evidence such as the medical report noting the smell of alcohol, the inexplicable and violent nature of the accident on an otherwise empty, wide road, and the absence of any innocent explanation (such as a sudden obstruction) for the loss of control. It clarified that the statutory standard for a drunk-driving offence under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act is a separate and distinct test from what suffices to invoke an insurance exclusion clause, which only requires the insurer to show the accident was linked to the driver's alcohol consumption. Weighing the medical evidence, the driver's own evasive testimony, and the manner of the crash together, the Court held the State Commission's view was a plausible one that the NCDRC was wrong to overturn, set aside the NCDRC's order, and restored the repudiation of the claim, allowing the insurer's appeal.
In a motor insurance dispute over a "driving under the influence" exclusion, courts can infer intoxication from circumstantial evidence, the manner of the accident, medical notes of alcohol smell, and an unexplained loss of vehicle control, without requiring the stricter proof (such as a blood-alcohol test) needed for a criminal drunk-driving conviction.
