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 hotel company facing service-tax demands was pushed into insolvency proceedings in September 2018, which placed it under a legal "moratorium" (a statutory freeze on payments and proceedings) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. While the moratorium was in force, the Government launched the Sabka Vishwas scheme, a one-time settlement window for old indirect-tax disputes; the company's resolution professional applied in time, and the Designated Committee fixed the settlement amount at Rs. 1,24,28,500, payable by 30 June 2020 (the COVID-extended deadline). The insolvency resolution plan was approved by the NCLT only on 24 July 2020, so the moratorium lifted after the payment deadline had passed. When the company then offered to pay, the tax department refused as the scheme had closed, and the Allahabad High Court dismissed the company's writ petition.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It found it undisputed that the company was otherwise fully eligible: it had applied in time and the settlement figure had been fixed within the scheme's validity; the only reason it did not pay by 30 June 2020 was that the IBC moratorium legally barred it from making any payment, and paying would itself have breached the IBC. Relying on the principle that "no law would compel a person to do the impossible" and that no party should be left remediless, the Court held the company could not be punished for failing to do something that was legally impossible for it. It clarified that although a High Court cannot extend a statutory scheme under Article 226, this was not an extension but a remedial measure for a genuine legal impediment; and the argument that the Designated Committees no longer existed was answered by the CBIC's own instructions allowing manual processing after court orders. The Court directed that the Rs. 1,24,28,500 already deposited be treated as settlement under the scheme and that a discharge certificate be issued.
When a statutory deadline is missed solely because the law itself prevented compliance (here, an insolvency moratorium), courts can grant relief: a person cannot be penalised for failing to do the impossible. Timely action on everything within one's control, as this company did, is what makes such relief possible.
