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.
Naser Bin Abu Bakr Yafai and others were arrested in 2016 after the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), Nanded, received information that he was in contact with ISIS members and was helping plan a bomb attack. While ATS Nanded was investigating and had already filed a chargesheet, the Central Government directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to take over the case. The appellant argued that once that direction was issued, ATS Nanded had no power to continue investigating or to file the chargesheet before the local magistrate, and that only a Special Court under the NIA Act could have handled the matter. Both the trial court and the Bombay High Court rejected this challenge, leading to appeals before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that Section 6(7) of the NIA Act obliges the local police to keep investigating until the NIA actually takes over the case records, not merely from the date of the Centre's direction, so ATS Nanded's continued investigation and its chargesheet (filed before the NIA had even received the file) were valid. The Court also held that the exclusive jurisdiction of an NIA Special Court attaches only once such a court is actually notified by the State; since no Special Court had been notified in Maharashtra at the relevant time, the magistrate and sessions court designated as remand/trial courts retained jurisdiction. The Court distinguished its earlier ruling in Bikramjit Singh (where a Special Court already existed) and dismissed both appeals, upholding the High Court's order transferring the case to the NIA's Special Court in Mumbai.
Even after the Centre orders the NIA to take over a serious case, local police must keep investigating without any gap until the file is actually handed over, and a Special Court's exclusive power over such cases begins only once that court has actually been set up, not from the date of the transfer order alone.
