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.
Adani Power won a competitive bid to supply 1000 MW of electricity to Gujarat's power procurer (GUVNL) at Rs. 2.35/unit, on the stated basis that Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation (GMDC) would supply it indigenous coal from an allocated coal block; it later shifted the supply source to its Mundra plant. When GMDC failed to finalise the Fuel Supply Agreement despite years of correspondence involving the Gujarat Government, Adani Power issued a termination notice in December 2009 for non-fulfilment of a condition in the PPA, and deposited liquidated damages. The Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission and, on appeal, the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity both held the termination illegal and directed Adani Power to keep supplying power at the contracted rate, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that Adani Power's bid documents themselves recorded that the project depended on GMDC's committed coal supply, so the Appellate Tribunal had erred in finding otherwise; once GMDC failed to execute the Fuel Supply Agreement, Adani Power was entitled under the PPA's own termination clause (Article 3.4.2, triggered by non-compliance with a condition in Article 3.1.2) to terminate the contract, and no separate mutual agreement between the parties was needed to invoke that right. The Court therefore declared the December 2009 termination notice legal and valid, with the PPA treated as having ended from January 2010, even though Adani Power had continued supplying power afterward under the regulators' orders. Recognising that Adani Power had incurred substantial costs completing and running the project after termination, the Court held it was entitled to a "compensatory tariff" reflecting those costs and interest, but rather than computing this itself, it allowed the appeal and directed Adani Power to approach the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) to determine the actual compensatory tariff within three months, with the procurer to pay accordingly (adjusting earlier part-payments and its own liquidated-damages claim of Rs. 100 crore).
A party to a long-term power supply contract can lawfully terminate it when a contractually anticipated condition (such as a committed fuel supply) genuinely fails through no fault of its own, and regulators cannot compel continued performance by effectively rewriting the contract's termination clause, though the specific financial consequences of such termination may still need to be worked out by the appropriate specialist regulator.
