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 State Bank of India had alleged that the appellant company, its Chairman and promoter-directors cheated it of about Rs. 354.32 crores by diverting funds abroad, leading to a CBI FIR and, since the offences were scheduled offences under PMLA, an Enforcement Directorate (ED) case. The ED directed three banks to "debit freeze/stop operations" on the company's accounts. The company challenged this freeze before the Karnataka High Court, which upheld the ED's power to act under PMLA but did not examine whether the correct legal procedure had actually been followed, leaving the company unable to pay statutory dues like TDS, PF, ESI and employee salaries.
The Supreme Court agreed that the ED had the power under PMLA to act against proceeds of crime, but held that the specific procedure under Section 17 of the PMLA, recording a written "reason to believe" before freezing, and reporting the freezing order with material to the Adjudicating Authority, had not been followed; the freezing communication itself gave no indication that this due process had been observed. The Court rejected the ED's alternative argument that the freeze could instead be justified under Section 102 CrPC, holding that an order's validity must be judged by the reasons actually given at the time, not reasons added later in court, and that since PMLA is a standalone special law, its own procedure must be followed rather than falling back on the general Code of Criminal Procedure. As the freezing order failed to comply with the mandatory procedure, it was quashed and the banks were directed to defreeze the accounts and honour payments towards statutory dues, while leaving the ED free to initiate fresh action in accordance with law if it wished.
When a law (like PMLA) prescribes a specific procedure for exercising a power such as freezing a bank account, including recording reasons in writing and reporting to an oversight authority, that exact procedure must be followed, and the government cannot cure a defective order after the fact by offering new justifications in an affidavit before the court.
