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.
Punjab & Sind Bank had been a tenant in a Kolkata property since 1972. After the respondent, Frontline Corporation, bought the property, the Bank availed large credit facilities (over Rs. 42 crore) from itself, mortgaging the same property as collateral. When Frontline defaulted, the Bank declared the account a Non-Performing Asset and initiated recovery under the SARFAESI Act, including taking possession of the property. Frontline went to the Calcutta High Court seeking specific performance of a separate settlement/lease arrangement and got an interim order restraining the Bank from finalizing any sale of the property; a Single Judge later vacated that order (citing the Bank's rights as a secured creditor), but a Division Bench of the High Court reinstated the restraint, reasoning that the Bank was bound by the earlier settlement (invoking "promissory estoppel").
The Supreme Court held that under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, civil courts have no jurisdiction over matters that a Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) is empowered to decide: this bar applies broadly to any matter connected with actions taken or to be taken under the Act, with only a very narrow exception where the secured creditor's claim is clearly fraudulent or wholly untenable, which was not the case here. The Court also held that the Division Bench, sitting in an appeal against the Single Judge's exercise of discretion, should not have substituted its own view unless the Single Judge had acted arbitrarily or ignored settled legal principles, which he had not, since he had correctly applied the statutory bar under Section 34. The Supreme Court therefore restored the Single Judge's order, allowing the Bank to proceed, and set aside the Division Bench's judgment.
Once a bank or financial institution invokes the SARFAESI Act to recover a secured debt, a borrower generally cannot use an ordinary civil suit to block the recovery process: such disputes must ordinarily go through the specialized Debt Recovery Tribunal, and appellate courts should be cautious about overturning a lower court's reasonable exercise of discretion.
