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.
Under a 1982 agreement, Royal Construction Company (RCCPL) carried out earthwork for National Projects Construction Corporation (NPCCL) in Iraq, with payment fixed in Iraqi Dinars and convertible to US Dollars at an agreed fixed rate. An arbitral award (later upheld by the Supreme Court in 2015) directed NPCCL to pay RCCPL amounts in Iraqi Dinars (with interest) plus Rs. 20 lakh relating to an encashed bank guarantee. Both sides later disagreed on how the Dinar-denominated award should actually be paid, and the Delhi High Court certified a question to the Supreme Court: on what date should the awarded sum be converted from US Dollars into Indian Rupees?
The Supreme Court held that neither the original agreement, the arbitral award, nor its own 2015 judgment ever contemplated conversion of the award into Indian Rupees at all: the only permissible conversion was from Iraqi Dinars into US Dollars, at the rate fixed in the 1982 agreement, and the only rupee amount payable was the separate Rs. 20 lakh bank-guarantee sum. Since there was no basis for converting the Dinar/Dollar amount into rupees in the first place, the very question referred by the High Court (about the date for INR conversion) did not arise. The Court left the parties free to pay/accept the sum in Indian currency by mutual agreement at whatever rate they chose, but declined to fix or interfere with the currency terms itself, and allowed RCCPL to proceed with execution of the award.
Courts will enforce an arbitration award and the underlying contract strictly as written on payment currency. If an agreement and award specify a foreign currency and a fixed conversion rate to another foreign currency only, a party cannot ask a court to invent a new conversion mechanism into Indian Rupees that the contract and award never provided for.
