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.
Ramesh Kymal, a former Chairman and Managing Director, resigned and claimed over Rs. 104 crore owed to him under his employment and incentive agreements, specifying 30 April 2020 as the date of default in his statutory demand notice. He filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) on 11 May 2020 as an operational creditor seeking to initiate insolvency proceedings against the company. While the application was pending, an Ordinance dated 5 June 2020 inserted Section 10A into the IBC, barring any insolvency application for a default arising on or after 25 March 2020 (the COVID-19 lockdown period), and both the NCLT and NCLAT held his application was barred by this new provision.
The Supreme Court held that Section 10A's bar is tied to the date of default, not the date an application is filed, since the declared date of default (30 April 2020) fell within the period covered by Section 10A, the bar applied even though the Section 9 application itself had been filed on 11 May 2020, before Section 10A was actually inserted on 5 June 2020. The Court rejected the appellant's attempt to argue for an earlier "actual" date of default (21 January or 23 March 2020), holding he was bound by the date he himself had disclosed in his statutory demand notice. It also distinguished between the "initiation date" (when a creditor files an application) and the "commencement date" (when the tribunal admits it), agreeing with the NCLAT that Section 10A's bar operates retrospectively from 25 March 2020 regardless of when the application happened to be filed. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that no insolvency proceedings could be initiated for this default.
When a law creates a temporary bar tied to a specific trigger event (here, the date of default during the COVID-19 period), courts will look at when that triggering event occurred, not merely when a party happened to file its case, and a creditor is bound by the date of default it itself formally declared in its statutory notice, and cannot later argue for a different, more convenient date.
