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.
The appellant company imported a "Cutter Suction Dredger" along with accessories such as pipes, anchor boats, multicats, dredging pumping units, air compressors and engines, and claimed a Nil rate of customs duty under a government exemption notification for "dredgers." The Assistant Commissioner denied the exemption for several accessory items, treating them as separately classifiable goods rather than parts of the dredger. On appeal, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) allowed the exemption for nine specific items, finding them integral to the dredger's functioning, but the CESTAT (tribunal) reversed this and restored the original denial, relying on a statutory note excluding certain machinery from being treated as "parts" of other equipment.
The Supreme Court examined the technical working of a Cutter Suction Dredger in detail, noting that pipelines, pumping units, and air compressors are essential to its core function of sucking dredged material and discharging it elsewhere, unlike self-contained hopper dredgers. It held that the CESTAT erred by treating each accessory in isolation instead of asking whether the item was essential to the dredger's operation as a whole; the correct test is not whether an item has other possible uses, but whether it is indispensable for the dredging function. The Court distinguished a Steel Authority of India precedent involving coke-oven "guide cars" as inapplicable, since that case turned on different facts about what was essential to that particular machinery. It restored the Appellate Commissioner's order granting exemption for the disputed items (while upholding the exclusion of generators, which both lower authorities had already denied), and allowed the appeal in part.
In customs and excise classification disputes, whether an imported accessory qualifies as an integral "part" of specialized machinery (and thus shares its exemption) depends on whether it is functionally essential to that machine's actual operation, not merely on whether the item could theoretically be used elsewhere or is described separately in a bill of entry.
