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.
Rusoday Securities, a trading member of the National Stock Exchange (NSE), exceeded its permitted trading exposure limits in October 1997 and failed to deposit the additional margin money demanded by the Exchange within the given deadline. As a result, its trading facility was withdrawn, its outstanding positions were closed out, and it was eventually expelled from NSE membership; the Exchange also withheld various securities belonging to the broker to recover amounts it was found to owe. The broker challenged both the expulsion itself and, in a separate connected appeal, the Exchange's right to hold on to its securities for over two decades without releasing or fully accounting for them.
The Supreme Court upheld the Securities Appellate Tribunal's decision confirming the expulsion, finding that the broker had genuinely and repeatedly violated exposure limits, margin requirements and its own undertakings to comply with the Exchange's rules: conduct that justified expulsion under the applicable bye-laws and SEBI's Code of Conduct for stock brokers. On the securities-withholding appeal, the Court held that the securities legally vested in the Exchange as of the date of expulsion to the extent of the broker's liability, and that the Exchange's delay in liquidating them during years of related litigation (including criminal proceedings the broker itself had initiated) was not an abuse of discretion. The Court declined to disturb the Tribunal's factual finding on the amount owed (Rs. 2.41 crore) since its own appellate jurisdiction under Section 22F of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act is limited to questions of law. To bring finality after 23 years of litigation, it issued detailed directions for the Exchange to evaluate and realise the remaining withheld securities, return any surplus with 12% annual interest, and return unrealised securities within six weeks, disposing of both appeals.
Stock exchange members who repeatedly breach trading-exposure and margin rules can be lawfully expelled, and securities an exchange validly withholds to cover a defaulting member's dues remain its security until the liability is finally settled, but once settlement is due, exchanges must account for and return any surplus promptly, with interest, rather than leaving the matter unresolved indefinitely.
