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.
A Swiss arms manufacturer had a 2012 contract with India's Ministry of Defence to supply sub-machine guns. In 2016, the Ministry encashed the company's bank guarantee and deducted liquidated damages for delayed supply, rejecting the company's objections. The parties then continued informal "bilateral discussions" for years, but in 2017 the Ministry told the company it would not reconsider its decision. The company sent a formal notice invoking arbitration only in November 2021, more than five years after the 2016 deduction, and then approached the Supreme Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act asking it to appoint an arbitrator, arguing that the ongoing negotiations should extend the limitation period.
The Supreme Court held that time-barred claims cannot be referred to arbitration merely by invoking Section 11(6), and that the "cause of arbitration" accrues just like a cause of action in civil litigation, from the date of the clear and unequivocal breach, not from whenever negotiations eventually break down. Relying on its own precedent (Geo Miller) and English arbitration law commentary, the Court found the actual "breaking point" was 2016, when the bank guarantee was encashed and liquidated damages deducted (an unequivocal, final action) not the company's later claim that negotiations continued informally until 2019. Mere ongoing talks, without a specifically pleaded and evidenced history of genuine negotiation, cannot indefinitely extend the three-year limitation period under the Limitation Act, 1963. Since the arbitration notice was issued more than five years after the cause of action arose, the Court held the claim was "hopelessly barred" by limitation and rejected the petition for appointment of an arbitrator.
A party to a contract with an arbitration clause must invoke arbitration within the statutory limitation period (generally three years) from when the dispute clearly and finally crystallizes, continuing informal negotiations or correspondence after that point does not pause or restart the clock, so parties should send a formal arbitration notice promptly once a dispute becomes final rather than relying on ongoing talks to preserve their rights.
