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.
The Prakash family jointly owned ANI Media Private Limited (formerly Asian Films Laboratories), with shares held by Prem Prakash, his wife Daya Prakash, son Sanjiv Prakash, and daughter Seema Kukreja. A 1996 family Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) gave Sanjiv Prakash management control after the family brought in Reuters as a 49% shareholder, but the family later signed a formal Shareholders' Agreement (SHA) with Reuters, and a dispute arose over whether the SHA had superseded (novated) the earlier MoU's control arrangement. When Sanjiv sought arbitration under the MoU's arbitration clause, the Delhi High Court's single judge dismissed his Section 11 petition, holding the MoU stood superseded by the SHA and there was no arbitration agreement left to invoke.
The Supreme Court held that whether the MoU was novated by the SHA was a detailed, fact-intensive question requiring examination of both agreements and surrounding circumstances: exactly the kind of inquiry that falls outside a court's limited prima facie review at the referral stage under Section 11, and squarely within the arbitral tribunal's own jurisdiction under the competence-competence principle. Relying on recent precedent (including Vidya Drolia), the Court reiterated that courts should refer parties to arbitration unless the claim is ex facie non-arbitrable or frivolous, which was not the case here. It held the High Court was wrong to have gone into the merits of novation itself, set aside the High Court's judgment, and referred the dispute to a sole arbitrator (a retired judge of the Supreme Court) to decide, without being bound by any of the Supreme Court's own prima facie observations.
When a contract contains an arbitration clause, courts asked only to appoint an arbitrator should not themselves decide contested factual or legal questions (like whether an earlier agreement was superseded): those belong to the arbitrator, and courts should refer the matter to arbitration unless the dispute is plainly incapable of being arbitrated.
