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.
ITC Limited, a paper manufacturer, had been availing a duty exemption on "waste paper/broke" used in its manufacturing process but later realised it had wrongly claimed this exemption and voluntarily started paying duty from May 2001. It then filed a refund claim in 2003 for duty paid during July 2001-March 2002, without having first appealed the underlying assessment order. The refund claim was rejected by the authorities and the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), leading to this appeal. The case was heard together with a large batch of similar appeals (filed by both importers/assessees and the government) from the Delhi and Madras High Courts, all turning on the same legal question.
The central legal question was whether a refund of customs/excise duty can be claimed under Section 27 of the Customs Act (or the parallel excise provision) without the taxpayer first getting the original assessment order (including a "self-assessment") modified through an appeal. The Supreme Court held that an order of self-assessment is still an "order of assessment" and is appealable; therefore a refund application cannot be used as a backdoor way to reopen or re-assess the correctness of duty paid: the assessee (or the Revenue) must first challenge the assessment itself under Section 128 (appeal provision) before a refund claim under Section 27 can be entertained. The Court disagreed with the Delhi and Madras High Courts' reasoning (relied on in Micromax Informatics and similar cases) that self-assessment without a formal "lis" falls outside this requirement, and upheld the Tribunal's view that ITC's refund application was not maintainable since it had never appealed the final assessment order. All appeals in the batch, including ITC's, were accordingly disposed of upholding the Tribunal's approach, with parties bearing their own costs.
If you believe customs or excise duty was wrongly assessed (including through self-assessment on a bill of entry), you must first formally appeal and get that assessment order corrected: simply filing a refund application later, without challenging the assessment, will not succeed even if the underlying exemption claim might have been valid.
