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 company had been ordered wound up by the Allahabad High Court for failing to pay its debts, and an official liquidator took charge of its assets; the winding-up order was then kept in abeyance after the company paid off the original petitioning creditor, though a large debt (around Rs. 27 crore) to other creditors remained unpaid. Separately, the appellant, a different creditor owed about Rs. 32 lakh, filed its own insolvency application against the same company before the NCLT and then asked the High Court to transfer the pending winding-up case to the NCLT so both matters could be handled together, but the High Court rejected this transfer request.
The Supreme Court examined the complex, repeatedly-amended Section 434 of the Companies Act and the "fifth proviso" added in 2018, which allows "any party" to a winding-up proceeding to seek its transfer to the NCLT regardless of the procedural stage the case has reached. It held that the word "party" in this context is not limited to the original petitioning creditor or the company itself, but extends to any creditor of the company in liquidation, since winding-up proceedings are fundamentally proceedings "in rem" conducted for the benefit of the entire body of creditors. Since the High Court had wrongly refused the transfer merely because formal notice under the old Companies Court Rules had already been served, the Supreme Court set aside that order, holding that this stage-based restriction does not apply to transfers sought under the fifth proviso. It therefore allowed the appeal and ordered the winding-up proceedings transferred to the NCLT to be taken up alongside the appellant's insolvency application.
Any creditor of a company facing winding-up proceedings in a High Court, not just the creditor who originally filed the case, has the legal right to seek a transfer of those proceedings to the specialised insolvency tribunal (NCLT), and courts cannot block such a transfer merely because the case has already progressed to a certain procedural stage.
