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.
This diary number corresponds specifically to Civil Appeal No. 54 of 2016, filed by Osians Connoisseurs of Art Pvt. Ltd., which was heard together with two connected appeals (C.A. Nos. 19936/2017 and 77/2018) arising from the same underlying dispute over "Yatra Art Fund" trusts that pooled money from investors (over Rs. 32 crore from 182 investors combined) to invest in art. SEBI had found these trusts to be unregistered "collective investment schemes" under securities law, and ordered the funds restrained from the securities market and the money refunded to investors with interest; the Securities Appellate Tribunal partly set aside SEBI's direction for criminal reference but sent the refund question back to SEBI.
At the hearing, senior counsel for the appellant specifically sought the Court's permission to withdraw Civil Appeal No. 54 of 2016, the appeal matching this diary number, and the Court simply allowed that withdrawal without any adjudication on its merits. The substantive legal discussion and ruling in this judgment (that the art-fund trusts were indeed illegal, unregistered collective investment schemes, and that the balance principal owed to the 50 and 132 investors of the two funds, plus 10% annual interest, must be repaid within six to nine months) relates entirely to the two connected, tagged appeals (C.A. Nos. 19936/2017 and 77/2018), not to this diary's own appeal.
Not applicable in the ordinary sense for this specific diary number: a litigant can seek and be granted the Court's permission to withdraw an appeal at any stage, bringing that particular case to a close without any ruling on its underlying merits, even while connected appeals from the same dispute proceed to a full decision in the same hearing.
