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.
Indian Acrylics Limited supplied acrylic yarn on credit to Shital Fibres Ltd., but after adjustments for quality complaints and part payments, a balance of about Rs. 8.92 lakh remained unpaid despite a statutory notice. Indian Acrylics filed a company petition seeking winding up of Shital Fibres for inability to pay its debts, and the Company Judge admitted the petition while giving Shital Fibres a last chance to settle by a fixed date, which it eventually did (paying off the principal amount) after the High Court stayed publication of the admission notice on that condition. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed Shital Fibres' appeal, holding there was no bona fide dispute about the debt, but left the question of interest claimed by Indian Acrylics open for separate proceedings; Shital Fibres then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the Company Judge and the High Court had correctly found that Shital Fibres' defence to the admitted debt was not bona fide or substantial, distinguishing the precedents Shital Fibres relied on (Vijay Industries and IBA Health) because those cases involved genuinely disputed, contingent, or settlement-based claims requiring detailed factual investigation, unlike the present case where the invoices and the debt itself were not seriously disputed. It held that a company petition for winding up can be admitted without first establishing that the entire claim is undisputed, and that leading detailed evidence is only relevant after admission, not before. Finding no merit in the appeal, the Court dismissed it with no order as to costs, leaving Indian Acrylics free to pursue its separate claim for interest through appropriate proceedings.
A company cannot avoid winding-up proceedings merely by raising vague or non-substantial objections to an otherwise admitted and proven debt; courts will look at whether the defence is genuinely bona fide before treating a claim as disputed enough to block admission of the petition.
