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.
Supertech Ltd., a real estate company building several projects (mainly in the NCR), defaulted on loans from Union Bank of India, leading to insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC. The NCLT admitted the insolvency application and appointed an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), but the NCLAT (on the promoter's appeal) modified this into an unusual "project-wise" arrangement, restricting the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to just one project ("Eco Village-II"), while letting the ex-management continue running the company's other ongoing projects with IRP oversight. Two financial creditors (Union Bank of India and Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Company) challenged this project-wise resolution approach before the Supreme Court, arguing the IBC has no concept of "project-wise" insolvency and that the NCLAT had no power to sideline the CoC or let ex-management back in without following due process. A related appeal by Assets and Care Reconstruction Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 1975 of 2023) concerned similar interim NCLAT directions on convening lender meetings.
The Supreme Court, considering only the question of interim relief pending final disposal of the appeals, applied settled principles on interlocutory injunctions: that the party seeking a change must show a strong case, risk of irreparable injury, and that the balance of convenience favours the change (relying on Union of India v. Raj Grow Impex LLP and the "lower risk of injustice" test from English case law). The Court found that displacing the NCLAT's interim arrangement and forcing a company-wide CoC at this stage would throw all the ongoing (non-Eco Village-II) projects into uncertainty and cause serious hardship to home buyers, whereas keeping the status quo (other projects continuing under IRP supervision with ex-management assistance, without creating new rights for the ex-management) caused comparatively less harm. It therefore declined to disturb the NCLAT's interim directions for projects other than Eco Village-II, and for Eco Village-II (where a CoC had already been ordered) directed that no step beyond voting on a resolution plan proceed without the Supreme Court's specific permission. The larger legal question of whether "project-wise" CIRP is even permissible under the IBC was left open for final hearing, listed for admission in July 2023; no interim relief was granted in the connected Assets and Care Reconstruction appeal.
Courts granting or refusing interim relief weigh which course carries the lower risk of injustice and greater practical hardship (here, protecting home buyers in ongoing projects) rather than resolving the underlying legal controversy at the interim stage: a reminder that an interim order is not a final ruling on the merits of a novel legal question like "project-wise insolvency resolution."
