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.
NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., a company with modest declared income, reported receiving Rs. 17.6 crore in share capital/premium from 17 investor companies based in Mumbai, Kolkata and Guwahati during Assessment Year 2009-10, at a steep premium of Rs. 190 per share on a face value of just Rs. 10. When the tax department investigated, several investor companies were found non-existent at their given addresses, none appeared before the Assessing Officer, and most had filed returns showing negligible income, raising serious doubts about whether the money was genuine investment or laundered unaccounted income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal both ruled in the company's favour, and the Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue's further appeal.
The Supreme Court held that merely producing paperwork like PAN numbers, bank statements and income tax returns does not automatically discharge a company's burden under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act; the assessee must also prove the genuine identity, creditworthiness and real financial capacity of its investors, especially in private placements where only the assessee has true knowledge of the facts. Since the field enquiries showed investor companies to be non-existent, unresponsive, or financially incapable of making such large investments at such an unusual premium, the Court found the transactions were not genuine. It allowed the Revenue's appeal, set aside the rulings of the High Court, Tribunal and first appellate authority, and restored the Assessing Officer's order adding the amount back to the company's taxable income.
Paper compliance alone (cheques, PAN cards, returns) is not enough to prove that money received as share investment is genuine: if the source companies turn out to be shell entities with no real financial capacity, the tax department is entitled to treat the amount as the recipient company's own undisclosed income.
