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.
The Telangana Roads and Buildings Department floated a tender for construction of a road in Mahabubabad District under a scheme for Left Wing Extremism-affected areas, which required bidders to prove ownership of a "Batch Type Hot Mix Plant" located within 100 km of the work site. The appellant and the fourth respondent (the original writ petitioner) both bid; the appellant quoted the lower price and was issued the Letter of Intent after producing a certificate showing its plant was 99.05 km away. The fourth respondent disputed this distance, and after conflicting verification reports (one showing 101.50 km via one route, and a shorter distance via an alternate route), the Chief Engineer accepted the appellant's eligibility. The fourth respondent's writ petition challenging this was dismissed by a Single Judge of the Telangana High Court, but a Division Bench (in a Letters Patent Appeal) reversed that dismissal, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench had erred in interfering with the Single Judge's finding that the Chief Engineer's re-verification process (calling an independent report from a Superintending Engineer who was not the jurisdictional officer) was fair and reasonable, especially since there was no prescribed procedure barring such independent verification. The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that an intra-court appellate bench should not disturb a Single Judge's findings unless they are shown to be perverse, and that courts exercise limited, corrective judicial review over tender/contractual matters rather than re-appreciating technical eligibility findings de novo. Finding no tender-condition violation and no case for extraordinary interference, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench's order, and restored the Single Judge's order upholding the award of the tender to the appellant, with no order as to costs.
Courts exercise limited judicial review over government tender decisions and will not second-guess a technical eligibility verification made through a fair process, even an unconventional one, unless it is shown to be arbitrary or perverse, and an appellate bench hearing an intra-court appeal should not overturn a trial judge's factual findings unless they are clearly perverse.
