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.
Coal purchased by Fertico Marketing under a subsidized Fuel Supply Agreement with Coal India was allegedly resold in the black market with the connivance of two government officials, causing a loss of over ₹36 crore to the public exchequer. The CBI registered an FIR and later filed a chargesheet against the company's director and the two officials. The accused sought to have the prosecution quashed, primarily arguing that the CBI's investigation was invalid because it lacked the Uttar Pradesh government's prior consent required under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act for probing offences involving state government officials.
The Supreme Court held that Uttar Pradesh's 1989 notification had already given CBI a general, standing consent to investigate Prevention of Corruption Act offences anywhere in the state, with only a rider requiring extra permission when a state-government public servant was involved, and that rider did not apply to the private individuals/company challenging the case, so their appeals had no merit. As for the two public servants, the state government had granted post-facto consent before the chargesheet was filed, and no prejudice or miscarriage of justice from any delay was shown, so the investigation against them also stood. However, the Court noticed that the High Court's Single Judge, while answering a preliminary legal question about CBI's jurisdiction, had never gone on to decide three other specific questions the parties had raised (about whether the dispute was really civil in nature, about selective prosecution, and about whether a conspiracy charge could stand without an official party). The Court therefore finally disposed of all the appeals by rejecting the consent-related challenge outright, while sending those three unaddressed questions back to the High Court's Single Judge to be decided on their own merits, with all those specific arguments kept open for the parties.
When a state has given CBI blanket advance permission to investigate corruption cases within its territory, that consent generally holds even years later and even for private individuals caught up in the same case; only investigations specifically targeting state-government officials need an extra, case-specific nod. Separately, courts must actually answer every legal question a party has properly raised, leaving some unaddressed can itself be a ground for correction on appeal.
