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.
LMJ International (buyer) and a related company had contracted with Sleepwell Industries (seller) to buy Non-Basmati Parboiled Rice from Thailand for onward supply to the Government of Bangladesh, with disputes to be resolved by GAFTA arbitration in London. When a dispute arose over rice quality and unpaid invoices, Sleepwell invoked arbitration; LMJ refused to participate, and the arbitral tribunal passed awards against it ex parte. Sleepwell then sought to enforce these foreign awards in the Calcutta High Court, which upheld the awards' enforceability over LMJ's objections (including that no formal declaration of enforceability was sought, that a related civil suit was pending, and that the arbitration clause and arbitrator appointments were procedurally defective), prompting LMJ to approach the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined the arbitral tribunal's detailed findings on the contract's terms (including an amendment on when the balance payment became due, tied to a quality inspection report that the buyer never produced) and found the tribunal had considered all aspects of the dispute properly. The Court held that even if the arbitral tribunal had erred, correction of such errors could only be pursued through an appeal under English law (which governed the arbitration), not through resisting enforcement in Indian courts, and that none of LMJ's procedural objections undermined the awards' enforceability. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions with exemplary costs of Rs. 20 lakh, and directed the Calcutta High Court's Registrar to encash the fixed deposits held in the execution proceedings and, after RBI permission, remit the full award amount with interest to Sleepwell within eight weeks.
Once parties agree to resolve disputes through foreign-seated arbitration, Indian courts enforcing the resulting award will not re-examine the merits of the arbitrator's findings: objections to the award's correctness must be pursued (if at all) under the law governing the arbitration itself, not used to resist enforcement, and parties who refuse to participate in arbitration proceedings do so at serious risk of an unfavorable ex parte award plus the cost of resisting its enforcement.
