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.
Indus Smelters supplied TMT bars to Vijeta Construction and was not paid the full price, so it approached the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council (set up under the MSMED Act, 2006) for recovery. The Facilitation Council closed the proceedings, saying it lacked jurisdiction to conduct a detailed inquiry and take evidence to determine the truth of a disputed document, and told the parties to go to a regular court instead. Indus Smelters challenged this before the Chhattisgarh High Court, which dismissed its writ petition on the technical ground that the Council's order amounted to an "award" appealable under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act rather than challengeable by writ. Vijeta Construction then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court explained that the MSMED Act gives the Facilitation Council a two-stage role: first as a conciliator (where it only helps the parties reach an amicable settlement and has no power to take evidence or adjudicate), and only if conciliation fails, as an arbitrator (where it gets full powers under the Arbitration Act, including taking evidence). Here, the Council had wrongly short-circuited this process: it neither genuinely attempted conciliation to a proper conclusion nor formally moved to the arbitration stage, so its order was not actually an "award" at all. Both the Council's order and the High Court's judgment were therefore quashed, and the matter was sent back to the Facilitation Council to follow the correct two-stage procedure from where it had gone wrong, with directions to finish within six months given how old the dispute was.
Dispute resolution bodies must follow the exact statutory sequence laid down for them (conciliation first, arbitration only after conciliation genuinely fails), skipping a stage can render their decision invalid and send the matter back to square one, regardless of how long the case has already dragged on.
