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.
Several industrial units set up in Himachal Pradesh had initially claimed a 100% tax deduction under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act for the first five years of operation (as the law allows for new units in specified categories), after which the deduction drops to 25-30% for the remaining years of the ten-year window. These assessees later carried out "substantial expansion" of their units within that ten-year period and claimed they were entitled to the 100% deduction rate again from the year of expansion. The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled in the assessees' favour, and the Income Tax Department (Revenue) appealed to the Supreme Court; connected appeals filed by assessees on the same point were also tagged and heard together.
The Supreme Court held that Section 80-IC itself defines "initial assessment year" in a way that allows a unit to acquire a second "initial assessment year" if it undertakes substantial expansion within the ten-year period, distinguishing this from the differently-worded provision in Section 80-IB relied on by an earlier judgment (Classic Binding Industries), which the Court held did not correctly state the law on this point. It clarified that an eligible unit gets 100% deduction for the first five years, then a reduced rate for subsequent years until the ten-year window, but if substantial expansion occurs within that ten-year window, the year of expansion becomes a fresh "initial assessment year" restoring the 100% deduction rate for the remaining years up to the original ten-year cap (the total period of benefit being capped at ten years overall). Applying this reasoning, the Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, dismissed all the Revenue's appeals, and allowed the appeals filed by the assessees on the same issue.
A business that qualifies for a tax holiday under Section 80-IC and later substantially expands its unit within the permitted ten-year window can regain the full 100% deduction rate for the remaining years, rather than being stuck at the lower post-five-year rate, but the total benefit period is still capped at ten years from the original start.
