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.
Shree Vishnu Constructions had a 2010 construction contract with the Military Engineering Service. After the final bill was paid in 2013 and the contractor issued a "no further claim" certificate, it later sent a notice in December 2013 invoking the contract's arbitration clause anyway. When the government did not act, the contractor applied to the Telangana High Court in 2016 to have an arbitrator appointed. The High Court refused, holding that because full and final payment had already been accepted with a no-claim certificate ("accord and satisfaction"), there was no live dispute to arbitrate, and it examined this question in detail rather than confining itself only to checking whether an arbitration agreement existed. The contractor argued this was wrong because, under the 2015 Amendment Act (which restricts courts at the Section 11 stage to only checking whether an arbitration clause exists, leaving all other issues to the arbitrator), the High Court should not have gone into "accord and satisfaction" at all.
The key question was whether the pre-2015 law or the amended 2015 law applied, given that the arbitration notice was sent in 2013 (before the amendment) but the court application was filed in 2016 (after it). The contractor relied on the Supreme Court's BCCI vs Kochi Cricket ruling, which held the 2015 Amendment applies to all court proceedings begun after the amendment date, regardless of when the underlying arbitration was invoked. The Supreme Court held that BCCI's reasoning was specifically about Sections 34 and 36 (challenging and enforcing awards), not Section 11 (appointing arbitrators), and that the applicable, more specific precedents for Section 11 applications (Parmar Construction and Pradeep Vinod Construction) correctly held that when the arbitration notice pre-dates the 2015 Amendment, the case is governed by the old, pre-amendment law, even if the Section 11 application itself is filed later. Applying the old law, the High Court was right to examine and decide the "accord and satisfaction" question itself, and its finding that the dispute had already been finally settled was upheld. The appeal was dismissed.
In arbitration disputes, the date you first send your notice invoking arbitration (not the date you later go to court asking for an arbitrator to be appointed) can determine which version of the arbitration law applies, so parties should be aware that older disputes may still be governed by rules that give courts wider power to screen out settled or non-existent disputes before appointing an arbitrator.
