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.
State Bank of India had filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) against Jai Balaji Industries, which the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Calcutta rejected. The bank appealed to the NCLAT, which set aside the NCLT's order and directed admission of the insolvency application, but Jai Balaji Industries contended it was never served notice of that appeal or given a hearing before the NCLAT, in violation of Rule 48 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, which requires formal service of notice once an appeal is admitted. The bank argued that an advance copy of the appeal paperbook had already been delivered to the company's registered office, so no further notice was required.
The Supreme Court held that merely receiving an advance copy of the appeal paperbook before the NCLAT formally issued notice does not satisfy Rule 48, which requires that notice be served specifically after the Tribunal issues it; the Tribunal's own registry records also showed no proof that the required process fee for service had even been paid. Finding that the appellant had genuinely been denied an opportunity to be heard, a breach of the basic natural justice principle of audi alteram partem, the Court set aside the NCLAT's order and remanded the matter back to the NCLAT for fresh consideration after giving both sides a proper hearing, directing the parties to seek an early listing and clarifying no fresh notice needed to be issued. The Court expressly did not comment on the merits of the underlying insolvency dispute, leaving that entirely to the NCLAT to decide afresh.
Being informally sent a copy of court papers is not the same as being formally served notice under a tribunal's own procedural rules: a party is entitled to a proper hearing before an order is passed against it, and courts will set aside and send back decisions made without that opportunity, regardless of how the underlying dispute may eventually turn out.
