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.
A registered trade union of officers of central public sector enterprises, along with a former Hindustan Zinc Limited (HZL) employee, challenged the Union Government's plan to sell its remaining 29.54% shareholding in HZL. HZL had originally been nationalised in 1966 and was progressively privatised through disinvestments starting in the 1990s and a major 2002 sale that handed majority control to a private group (Sterlite/Vedanta entities). The petitioners argued the further sale of the residual stake violated the Supreme Court's own 2003 ruling in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, which restricts disinvestment of genuine government companies without parliamentary sanction, and also alleged irregularities in the original 2002 disinvestment.
The Court held the petition was not barred by res judicata merely because an earlier, similar writ petition had been summarily dismissed without a decision on merits. It ruled that the 2003 Centre for Public Interest Litigation precedent did not apply here because HZL had already ceased to be a "government company" by the time of this residual-stake sale: the Union held only a minority stake by then. The planned sale of the residual 29.54% was therefore not barred, especially since the government undertook to sell it transparently through the market under SEBI regulations to get the best price. However, the Court found sufficient material to warrant a fresh criminal investigation into the original 2002 disinvestment of HZL's 26% stake and directed the CBI to register a regular case and report back to the Court every quarter.
Once a public sector company has genuinely and lawfully passed into private majority control, courts will not block further sale of the government's remaining minority stake on the same grounds used to block the original privatisation, but courts can still order a fresh criminal probe into a years-old disinvestment decision if the material on record raises a prima facie case of irregularity.
