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.
Galaxy Infra claimed it had helped Pravin Electricals win a government tender under a Consultancy Agreement dated 7 July 2014 containing an arbitration clause, and sought appointment of an arbitrator when Pravin allegedly refused to pay its commission. Pravin disputed that any such agreement was ever concluded, pointing to a forensic report that could not confirm the authenticity of the signature on the agreement, a notary who was not even licensed to notarize it at the time, and invoices and payments that were actually addressed to and made by a different company. The Delhi High Court's Single Judge nevertheless held that an arbitration agreement existed and appointed a sole arbitrator, prompting Pravin's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court explained that under Section 11(6A), as interpreted in its earlier decision in Vidya Drolia, a court examining a request to appoint an arbitrator should apply only a limited "prima facie" review of whether an arbitration agreement exists, leaving a deeper, fact-intensive dispute to the arbitrator himself where the evidence is genuinely contested. Reviewing the record, the Court found the High Court's findings were factually incorrect on several points (confusing which company actually raised and paid invoices, misreading the dates of the draft agreement, and glossing over the signature dispute and notary's lack of authorization) and that the case's many unresolved factual contradictions made it unsafe to conclusively hold either way that a valid arbitration agreement existed. It therefore set aside the High Court's conclusive finding on the agreement's existence but upheld the appointment of the sole arbitrator, directing him to first decide as a preliminary issue whether a valid arbitration agreement exists, based on full evidence and cross-examination, before proceeding to the merits.
When courts decide whether to appoint an arbitrator, they should only check if an arbitration agreement appears to exist on the surface, not conclusively resolve genuinely disputed facts (like disputed signatures or unclear contract formation): those deeper factual disputes are for the arbitrator to determine first, based on evidence and cross-examination.
