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.
After the Supreme Court cancelled all irregularly allotted coal blocks in 2014, the Pachhwara coal block (earlier operated through a joint venture with Emta Coal Limited) was re-allotted to Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL). PSPCL first entered a short transitional arrangement with Emta, then decided to appoint a new "Mine Developer-cum-Operator" through competitive bidding instead of continuing with Emta. Emta claimed it had a legitimate "first right of refusal" to continue operating the mine and challenged PSPCL's decision in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which ruled in Emta's favour. PSPCL and the new lowest bidder (DBL-VPR Consortium) appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that Section 11 of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act gives a successful allottee like PSPCL complete discretion ("may elect") to decide whether to continue a prior operator's contract: it does not entitle the prior contractor to continue merely because its performance was satisfactory. Reading the words literally, the Court found the High Court had effectively added conditions to the statute that the legislature never provided. On the separate question of judicial review, the Court held PSPCL's decision to hold a fresh competitive bid to get "the best operator at the best price" was a reasonable policy choice, not arbitrary or irrational, so it could not be struck down. The High Court's judgment was quashed and PSPCL's decision to re-tender was upheld.
A statute using permissive language like "may elect" gives a decision-maker real discretion, and a party cannot convert that discretion into an entitlement merely by performing satisfactorily, and courts reviewing government commercial decisions ask only if the decision was irrational or in bad faith, not whether it was the best possible choice.
