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.
Union Bank of India had extended loans to a proprietary firm (the principal borrower), for which a company, Surana Metals Limited (of which the appellant was a promoter/director), had furnished a corporate guarantee. The loan accounts were declared NPA in 2010, but the bank only initiated insolvency proceedings against the corporate guarantor (Surana Metals) under Section 7 of the IBC in 2019, more than three years after the default, relying on later communications in which the principal borrower and guarantor had acknowledged the debt. The guarantor challenged the insolvency application on two grounds: that Section 7 could not be invoked against a guarantor of a non-corporate (proprietorship) borrower at all, and that the claim was time-barred since it was filed more than three years after the original 2010 default. Both the NCLT and NCLAT rejected these objections, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that a corporate person who provides a guarantee for a loan taken by a non-corporate principal borrower (such as a proprietorship) is still a "corporate debtor" under the IBC once it fails to honour that guarantee, because its liability as guarantor is independent and coextensive with that of the principal borrower: the identity of the principal borrower does not control whether the guarantor can be proceeded against under the Code. On limitation, the Court held that the guarantor's own written communication acknowledging the loan and guarantee (even though sent "without prejudice") amounted to an acknowledgment of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, which restarts a fresh three-year limitation period; since the insolvency application was filed within three years of that acknowledgment, it was not time-barred. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, leaving other issues to be decided by the NCLT.
A company that stands as guarantor for someone else's loan can be pushed into insolvency proceedings in its own right once it defaults on that guarantee, and any written acknowledgment of a debt, even one marked "without prejudice", can restart the limitation clock, so acknowledging a liability casually is not risk-free.
