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.
Two Gurgaon metro rail lines were built and operated by Rapid MetroRail Gurgaon Limited (RMGL) and Rapid MetroRail Gurgaon South Limited (RMGSL), both part of the IL&FS group, under long-term concession agreements with Haryana state authorities (HSVP/HMRTC). After IL&FS's financial collapse and board supersession, RMGL/RMGSL terminated the agreements and sought to hand over the metro lines. HSVP/HMRTC challenged the termination notices in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which, with the parties' consent, directed that the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) determine the "debt due" and that 80% of that amount be deposited by HSVP in escrow, with remaining disputes to go to arbitration. HSVP/HMRTC later resisted complying once the CAG report came in, prompting this appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in exercising writ jurisdiction given the public interest in uninterrupted metro service, even though the underlying dispute was otherwise arbitrable, but clarified that ordinarily such commercial disputes should go through arbitration. It held that HSVP and HMRTC, as public bodies, could not resile from the solemn commitment they had voluntarily made before the High Court to deposit 80% of the CAG-determined debt in escrow, especially since banks and financial institutions had a vital stake in the funds. The Court directed HSVP to deposit the amount within three months, directed handover of the metro assets to HSVP thereafter, and left all other disputes (validity of termination, inter se claims, correctness of the CAG report) to be resolved through arbitration as per the concession agreements.
Government bodies cannot go back on commitments they voluntarily made before a court, particularly where public funds, lenders, and essential public infrastructure are involved; and courts will generally push commercial parties back to their agreed arbitration clause for disputes that don't require urgent public-interest intervention.
