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.
NDTV's UK subsidiary, NNPLC, had raised US$100 million through step-up coupon bonds in 2007, later redeemed early at a discount. The original 2012 assessment had already treated this as a valid transaction, merely adding a guarantee fee to NDTV's income. In 2015, more than four years later, the tax department issued a notice to reopen the 2008-09 assessment, alleging that the entire US$100 million was really NDTV's own undisclosed money routed back to India through a shell company, relying on a finding made in a separate (2009-10) assessment-year dispute. NDTV challenged the reopening notice, including before the Delhi High Court, arguing there was no failure on its part to disclose material facts (required to justify reopening after four years) and that the department later tried to invoke an entirely different, broader limitation provision (allowing up to 16 years for undisclosed foreign assets) that was never mentioned in the original notice.
The Supreme Court held that while the assessing officer did have some reason to believe income had escaped assessment, the department failed to show that this escapement was due to NDTV's own failure to disclose material facts: a necessary condition for reopening after the ordinary four-year window. The Court also found it fundamentally unfair that the department invoked the extended 16-year limitation period (meant for undisclosed foreign assets) only after NDTV had already replied to the original reasons, without ever including it in the initial notice or reasons, violating basic principles of natural justice by denying NDTV a real chance to respond to that specific ground. The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the reopening notice, but left open the possibility that the revenue could issue a fresh notice properly invoking the extended limitation provision if legally permissible, without expressing any opinion on the merits of that separate question.
Tax authorities reopening an old assessment must clearly state, upfront, every legal ground (including which limitation period) they are relying on: a taxpayer cannot be ambushed with a new justification only after they've already responded, as that denies a fair opportunity to contest it.
