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 2012 purchase order between Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. (GFL) and Jayesh Electricals Ltd. for power transformers designated Jaipur as the arbitration venue and Rajasthan courts as having jurisdiction over any disputes. GFL later transferred its entire business to Inox Renewables Ltd. (the appellant) under a separate agreement naming Vadodara as the seat, but Jayesh Electricals was not a party to that agreement. When a dispute arose, the Gujarat High Court appointed a sole arbitrator, and the arbitration proceedings were in fact conducted entirely at Ahmedabad by mutual consent of the parties, with the arbitrator expressly recording that the venue had shifted from Jaipur to Ahmedabad. After the arbitrator's award, Inox's challenge petition filed in Ahmedabad was rejected by the Commercial Court and then the High Court, both holding that courts in Vadodara or Rajasthan, not Ahmedabad, had jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court, applying its earlier landmark ruling in BGS SGSOMA JV v. NHPC, held that once parties mutually shift the actual place where arbitration proceedings are conducted, that shifted place becomes the arbitration's legal "seat" (not merely a convenient "venue"), which in turn vests exclusive jurisdiction in the courts of that seat: here, Ahmedabad. It distinguished the Respondent's reliance on Videocon Industries v. Union of India, noting that case involved a contract with an explicit clause requiring any amendment to be in a signed written instrument, which this contract lacked. Since the arbitrator had recorded, without challenge, that both parties mutually agreed to shift proceedings to Ahmedabad, the Court held courts at Ahmedabad, not Rajasthan or Vadodara, had exclusive jurisdiction to hear the challenge to the award, set aside the High Court's judgment, and sent the matter to Ahmedabad for the Section 34 challenge to be decided there.
Where parties to an arbitration agreement mutually and consistently conduct all proceedings at a different place than originally specified, that place can become the legal "seat" of arbitration by conduct, shifting which courts have the power to hear any later challenge to the award, making it important for parties to formally record (or object to) any such practical shift in real time.
