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.
The National Co-operative Development Corporation (NCDC), a statutory body set up to fund cooperative societies through government grants and loans, earned interest income by temporarily parking idle government funds in fixed deposits before disbursing them as loans/grants. A dispute spanning over 44 years (originating from assessment year 1976-77) arose over whether this interest income should be taxed as "business income" and whether the grants NCDC gave out of that interest could be deducted as a business expense. Tax authorities, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and the High Court gave differing answers at different stages, eventually disallowing NCDC's claimed deductions for grants given out of interest income.
The Supreme Court held that since NCDC's only real business was receiving and channelling funds as loans/grants, the interest earned while those funds sat temporarily idle was properly "business income" (not income from other, residuary sources), agreeing with the High Court on that narrow point. However, on the core dispute, whether the grants disbursed from that interest income could be deducted as a revenue expense, the Court disagreed with the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal, and the High Court, and instead sided with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), holding that such grants, being squarely within NCDC's authorized statutory purpose, were deductible revenue expenditure. The Court allowed NCDC's appeals, with no order as to costs, while separately expressing strong regret (in two "postscripts") about the decades-long delay in Government-vs-Government tax litigation and recommending the Central Government strengthen its advance tax ruling system to avoid such protracted disputes in future.
Grants and disbursements made by a statutory body strictly for the purposes authorized by its founding law can be deducted as ordinary business expenditure against income (like interest) earned in furtherance of that same statutory purpose, and the judgment is also a pointed reminder that excessive, slow-moving government-versus-government litigation wastes decades of judicial time to the detriment of the public exchequer.
