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.
PILCOM (Pak-Indo-Lanka Joint Management Committee) was the body formed by the cricket boards of Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka to jointly host the 1996 Cricket World Cup. It made various payments, described as "guarantee money", out of its London bank accounts to cricket associations of several countries, including some whose teams played matches in India. The Income Tax Department held that PILCOM was required to deduct tax at source on these payments under Section 194E read with Section 115BBA of the Income Tax Act, since the income was linked to matches played in India, and the Tribunal and High Court had both substantially upheld this view (with only a proportionate reduction based on how many matches a team played in India versus elsewhere).
The Supreme Court dismissed PILCOM's appeal, holding that guarantee money paid to non-resident cricket associations whose teams played matches in India was income accruing or arising in India, because the payment was intricately connected with participation in matches played here. It held that Section 115BBA's phrase "in relation to" any game played in India was broad enough to cover such guarantee payments, and that this triggered the obligation under Section 194E to deduct tax at source. The Court also held that the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) does not excuse the payer from the deduction obligation: the DTAA benefit, if applicable, can be claimed later by the actual recipient/assessee through a refund claim, not by the payer refusing to deduct in the first place. Two connected Special Leave Petitions filed by the Sri Lanka Cricket Board (through PILCOM), which depended on the outcome of the lead matter, were dismissed as a consequence.
Any Indian entity making payments abroad to a foreign sports body "in relation to" a game or tournament held in India must deduct tax at source, even if the payment is routed through foreign bank accounts and described as a guarantee or privilege fee rather than prize money: the existence of a tax treaty does not remove this upfront deduction obligation.
