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.
An independent law practitioner filed information with the Competition Commission of India (CCI) alleging that Ola and Uber's algorithmic fare-pricing amounted to illegal price-fixing and resale price maintenance under the Competition Act, 2002, since drivers could not negotiate fares and were bound by app-set prices. The CCI dismissed the complaint on merits, finding no agreement or "meeting of minds" between the cab aggregators or among drivers. On appeal, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) went further and held that the informant had no "locus standi" (legal standing) to even approach the CCI in the first place, since he was not personally a consumer harmed by Ola/Uber. The informant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the NCLAT's narrow view of standing was wrong. It explained that the Competition Act was amended in 2007 to replace the word "complaint" with "information," deliberately widening who may approach the CCI: any person, not just someone personally aggrieved, can provide information, because competition law proceedings are "in rem" (concerning the public interest) rather than purely private disputes. The Court similarly read "person aggrieved" in the appeal provisions broadly to include an informant whose information was rejected. However, on the actual merits, the Court agreed with the concurring findings of the CCI and NCLAT that Ola and Uber's pricing algorithms did not amount to a cartel or anti-competitive agreement, since drivers acted independently of one another and there was no evidence of collusion either between the two companies or among drivers. The appeal was therefore disposed of: the informant won on the standing question but lost on the substance of the price-fixing allegation.
Anyone, not just a direct customer or victim, can file a competition-law complaint with the CCI, because such proceedings protect the public market, not just private interests. However, simply being allowed to complain does not mean the complaint will succeed; the facts still have to show an actual anti-competitive agreement or collusion.
