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.
Super Bazar, a well-known multi-state consumer cooperative society, was ordered wound up in 2002 after financial collapse. In 2009, following a Supreme Court-supervised bidding process, Writers and Publishers Pvt. Ltd. (WPL) won the right to revive Super Bazar by committing to invest Rs. 504 crore. After years of WPL's management failing to achieve the promised revival, the Supreme Court in 2016 directed that WPL exit and be refunded its investment with 6% interest, subject to deduction of profits earned, the final figure to be verified by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). WPL then filed contempt petitions claiming it was owed about Rs. 142 crore, far more than what the CAG's audit computed.
The Supreme Court held that the CAG's verified computation (just Rs. 3.39 crore payable to WPL, after deducting recoverable amounts and losses) was binding and could not be reopened. The audit revealed that WPL had never genuinely tried to revive Super Bazar: it manipulated the cooperative's membership to seize 98.89% of the share capital, entered into unauthorized deals handing over store operations to third parties in breach of its commitments, stripped the Connaught Place building of its fixtures, and recorded large transactions that were sham book entries. The Court ruled that WPL's refund claim must go through the Official Liquidator and be paid according to the statutory order of priority under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act (with Provident Fund dues to workers ranking ahead of WPL's claim). The contempt petitions were dismissed and all pending applications disposed of.
A party permitted to take over a failing enterprise under court supervision cannot later demand repayment on its own terms: its conduct and accounts remain subject to independent audit, and any refund must respect the statutory priority of other creditors (such as employees' provident fund dues) rather than being paid first just because a court earlier ordered an exit.
