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.
Oswal Plastic Industries had insured its factory under a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy from the National Insurance company, on what it said was a "reinstatement value" basis, with the sum insured later raised to Rs. 4.50 crore. On 17 October 2009 a fire broke out in the factory, destroying stock and machinery; the factory claimed a loss of about Rs. 76.64 lakh. The insurer's own surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 29,17,500 on a reinstatement basis and Rs. 12,60,000 on a depreciated basis, yet the insurer repudiated the claim entirely. The Punjab State Consumer Commission awarded the reinstatement figure of Rs. 29,17,500 with interest, but the National Commission (NCDRC) cut this to the depreciated figure of Rs. 12,60,000, reasoning that old machinery should only be replaced "as is". The factory appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Court examined Clause 9 of Section 2 of the policy, which has two parts: first, the insurer has the option to itself reinstate or replace the damaged property instead of paying money; second, where the insurer is unable to reinstate or repair the property ("because of any municipal or other regulations ... or otherwise"), it must pay the sum that would be required to reinstate or repair the property to its former condition. Since the insurer never exercised the option to reinstate, the case fell within the second part, and the surveyor's report was the relevant evidence of the sum needed to reinstate. The Court therefore held that the insured was entitled to the reinstatement value (Rs. 29,17,500), not the depreciated value, and that the NCDRC had misread Clause 9. It agreed, however, that the factory could not claim the full Rs. 76.64 lakh cost of brand-new machinery. The NCDRC's order was set aside and the State Commission's award restored, with 7% interest from 10 November 2014 until payment.
Read the reinstatement clause of a fire policy carefully: if the insurer does not itself reinstate the damaged property, it must pay what it would cost to restore it to its former condition, not merely the depreciated "book" value. Insurers cannot use the depreciation route to pay less than the surveyor's own reinstatement assessment.
