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.
Odisha Forest Development Corporation (OFDC) ran e-tenders for the sale of Kendu leaf (tendu leaf) crops. Several successful bidders, including Anupam Traders, failed to pay the required additional security deposit on time, so OFDC cancelled their agreements and put the lots up for a fresh, costlier re-tender "at the cost and risk" of the defaulting bidders. The bidders went to the High Court challenging the cancellation and obtained an interim order requiring them to deposit specified sums (held separately) while the case was pending. They later withdrew their challenges to the cancellation and re-tender itself, but the High Court still ordered OFDC to refund the deposited interim amounts, which OFDC contested before the Supreme Court in a batch of connected appeals.
The Supreme Court held that once the bidders had withdrawn their challenge to the cancellation and re-tender, the High Court was not justified in directing an unconditional refund of the amounts deposited under its own interim orders, especially since the contract terms allowed OFDC to recover any loss caused by the delay in re-tendering "at cost and risk" of the defaulting party. Relying on the principle that no one should suffer because of an act of the court (actus curiae neminem gravabit), the Court set aside the blanket refund direction. Instead, it directed OFDC to issue a notice detailing how it computed its loss from the re-tender, pass a reasoned ("speaking") order after hearing the bidders, adjust the deposited amount against any proven loss, and refund any balance, with the bidders free to legally challenge that order if aggrieved.
Money deposited with a court or authority under an interim order during litigation is not automatically returnable just because the underlying challenge is dropped: if the other side can show it suffered a quantifiable loss because of the delay the litigation caused, that loss can be set off against the deposit through a fair, reasoned process.
