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.
A company (the corporate debtor) owed over Rs. 24 crore to a steel supplier for goods supplied, and 51 cheques issued towards this debt bounced for insufficient funds. The supplier issued statutory demand notices and filed criminal complaints under Section 138 (cheque dishonour) read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the company and its directors. Meanwhile, insolvency proceedings were admitted against the company under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), triggering a moratorium under Section 14 that bars certain proceedings against the corporate debtor. The company's directors argued the Section 138 prosecution against the company should be stayed/quashed because of this moratorium; the Bombay High Court had held the moratorium did not cover Section 138 proceedings, leading to this appeal, along with several connected appeals and writ petitions raising the same core question in different factual variations.
The Supreme Court held that a Section 138/141 cheque-dishonour proceeding against a corporate debtor is indeed covered by the moratorium under Section 14(1)(a) of the IBC, since such a proceeding is in substance a "proceeding" to recover money that could affect the corporate debtor's assets during insolvency resolution, overruling contrary High Court views. However, it clarified that the moratorium protects only the corporate debtor (the company) itself: it does NOT extend to the directors or other natural persons who are statutorily liable under Section 141, so prosecutions against them can continue even while the company enjoys the moratorium's protection. Applying this principle, the Court decided each of the connected appeals individually based on their specific facts (e.g., whether the complaint named only the company or also directors, and the timing of moratorium relative to the complaint), either quashing, continuing, or remanding them accordingly.
Filing for insolvency protects the company from a cheque-bounce prosecution but does not shield its directors or signatories, who remain personally liable and can still be prosecuted; creditors and accused persons alike must track whether a Section 138 complaint names individuals separately from the company to know what survives an IBC moratorium.
