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.
Modi Rubber Ltd. was declared a "sick" company and the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) sanctioned a rehabilitation scheme under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA), under which unsecured creditors (including its carbon-black supplier, Continental Carbon India Ltd.) were required to accept a scaled-down percentage of their dues as full and final settlement. Continental Carbon, dissatisfied with this scaled-down amount, argued it should instead be allowed to refuse the reduced payout and wait until the company was fully revived, then recover its full dues with interest. The Delhi High Court agreed with Continental Carbon, and this ruling was then relied upon in several other connected disputes (OCL India, TVS Sewing Needles, Titagarh Wagons) creating conflicting outcomes, prompting the Supreme Court to decide the common question in one combined judgment.
The Supreme Court held that a BIFR-sanctioned rehabilitation scheme under Section 18 of SICA binds all creditors, including unsecured creditors, and none of them has the option to opt out and wait for full recovery later, because allowing even a few creditors to escape the scheme's sacrifice would make the rehabilitation scheme unworkable and defeat the Act's entire purpose of reviving financially sick companies. The Court reasoned that SICA is a special, protective statute meant to serve larger public interest (saving jobs, productive assets and bank funds) and would collapse if any class of creditor could refuse its scaled-down share while the scheme otherwise proceeds; it also rejected the argument that being bound to accept a reduced payment violated the constitutional right to property under Article 300A. Accordingly, it overturned the Delhi High Court's ruling in the lead case, allowed the connected appeal and transfer petition, dismissed the related appeals that stemmed from the same erroneous view, and held that all unsecured creditors must accept the scaled-down dues fixed by a sanctioned BIFR scheme.
When a company is formally declared "sick" and a rehabilitation scheme is approved by the regulatory authority (BIFR under the now-repealed SICA), every creditor, including ordinary unsecured trade creditors, is legally bound to accept the reduced settlement fixed under that scheme; no individual creditor can hold out for full repayment after the company recovers.
