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 appellant, a registered Class 'A' contractor, was awarded contracts under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana for construction of two rural roads in Madhya Pradesh. After the M.P. Road Development Authority terminated the agreements for alleged slow progress and claimed liquidated damages, the appellant challenged this, and was granted liberty to pursue arbitration before the Madhya Pradesh Arbitral Tribunal, where the dispute over the termination and damages remained pending. While that arbitration was still unresolved, the Authority nonetheless issued recovery notices and sought to recover the claimed damages as arrears of land revenue, which the appellant challenged before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, but the High Court upheld the Authority's right to recover.
The Supreme Court held that under the contract's own dispute-resolution clauses, any determination of liquidated damages by the Authority's General Manager was subject to challenge through arbitration before the Arbitral Tribunal, and since a reference on precisely this dispute was already pending there, the Authority could not simultaneously act as judge in its own cause and initiate coercive recovery under the Land Revenue Act before the arbitration concluded. The Court relied on its own prior precedent holding that recovery of a disputed amount cannot be enforced through land revenue recovery procedures while the underlying liability is still sub judice before an arbitrator. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeals, quashed the High Court's judgments upholding the recovery proceedings, and set aside the recovery notices, while clarifying that the Arbitral Tribunal remains free to decide the pending reference on liquidated damages independently, uninfluenced by any of the Supreme Court's observations.
A government authority (or any contracting party) cannot use coercive recovery mechanisms like the Land Revenue Act to collect a disputed sum while that very dispute is still pending before an arbitrator: it must await the outcome of arbitration before enforcing recovery, since it cannot be the final judge of its own claim.
