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.
Many businessmen who had personally guaranteed bank loans taken by their companies challenged a November 2019 government notification that brought provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) into force specifically for "personal guarantors to corporate debtors," allowing insolvency proceedings against such guarantors to be heard by the same tribunal (NCLT) handling their company's insolvency. The guarantors argued the government had exceeded its power by selectively applying the law only to this one sub-category of individuals rather than to all individuals equally, and separately argued that once their company's debt was resolved through an approved insolvency resolution plan, their personal guarantee obligations should also be wiped out.
The Supreme Court held that the notification was a valid and lawful exercise of the government's power under Section 1(3) of the Code to bring different provisions into force at different times for different categories, given that Parliament itself had already created a distinct legal category for "personal guarantors to corporate debtors" through a 2018 amendment, and had specifically directed that their insolvency proceedings be handled by the same tribunal as the related company for practical and economic reasons. The Court extensively reviewed the distinction between "conditional legislation" (merely triggering an already-complete law) and "delegated legislation" (filling in legislative gaps), concluding the notification did not improperly rewrite the law but simply activated provisions Parliament had already enacted. On the second issue, the Court held that an approved corporate insolvency resolution plan does not automatically discharge a personal guarantor's liability, because a guarantor's liability is independent and co-extensive with the principal debtor's, a discharge obtained by the company "by operation of law" (such as through insolvency proceedings) does not free the guarantor, who remains liable under the separate guarantee contract.
Signing a personal guarantee for a company's loan creates an independent, continuing obligation, even if the company itself is later absolved of its debt through formal insolvency proceedings, the guarantor can still be pursued separately for the full guaranteed amount, so directors and promoters should understand that a personal guarantee is not automatically wiped out when the underlying business fails.
