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.
Mita India awarded Mahendra Jain a contract to shift a 33 KV overhead electrical line at its Dewas plant and by mistake overpaid him. Jain agreed to refund the excess and issued two cheques, which bounced on "stop payment" instructions. The company filed a Section 138 complaint through its authorised representative Ripanjit Singh Kohli, who had been appointed by the company's director and general power-of-attorney holder Kavindersingh Anand. Jain objected that Anand had no power to sub-delegate to Kohli and that Anand could not testify because the complaint did not say he knew the facts. The trial court and revisional court rejected these objections, but the Madhya Pradesh High Court, under Section 482 CrPC, quashed those orders relying on A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra (2014).
The Supreme Court allowed the company's appeal and restored the trial court's orders. Applying the A.C. Narayanan principles, it noted that a complaint can be filed through a power-of-attorney holder, and that a general attorney may sub-delegate if the power of attorney contains a specific clause permitting it. Here the board-approved power of attorney authorised Anand "to appoint counsels or special attorneys" for conducting cases; the Court read "special attorneys" as distinct from "counsel" (a separate clause dealt with appointing lawyers and consultants), so the sub-delegation to Kohli was valid and the complaint, filed in the company's own name, was maintainable. On the second point, Anand was a director who had filed a personal affidavit stating he was fully conversant with the facts; the High Court "manifestly erred" in ignoring that affidavit merely because the averment was not in the complaint itself. Since he had knowledge of the transaction, he was competent to depose.
A company can pursue a cheque-bounce case through an authorised representative, and its attorney can pass on that authority if the power of attorney expressly allows appointing "special attorneys." What matters is that the person who files or testifies actually knows the facts of the transaction, which can be shown by affidavit even if the complaint itself is silent.
