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.
This judgment disposes of a large batch of appeals arising from disputes over "transfer pricing": the rules that determine the price at which a company's Indian unit and its foreign associate should deal with each other for tax purposes (the "arm's length price," or ALP). The Karnataka High Court, following its own earlier ruling in PCIT vs Softbrands India, had held that once the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal determines the arm's length price, that determination is final and cannot be questioned by the High Court in a further appeal, because it does not raise a "substantial question of law" as required under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. Both the Revenue and various assessees, including SAP Labs India, challenged this blanket approach before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the Karnataka High Court's absolute rule, that a Tribunal's arm's length price determination can never be scrutinised on appeal, was legally incorrect. It explained that while the Tribunal is normally the final fact-finding authority, a determination made without following the guidelines laid down in the Income Tax Act (Sections 92 to 92F) and the Income Tax Rules (Rules 10A to 10E) can amount to a "perverse" finding, and perversity itself raises a substantial question of law that the High Court is entitled to examine. This includes scrutinising whether comparable companies were correctly selected, whether the right pricing method and filters were applied, and whether relevant evidence was properly considered. The Court therefore set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgments (both those favouring the Revenue and those favouring assessees) and remitted all the matters back to the respective High Courts to be decided afresh applying this clarified standard, within about nine months, while explicitly declining to rule on the merits of any individual assessee's actual pricing determination.
A tax tribunal's factual findings on technical matters like transfer pricing are not automatically beyond appellate review. If a tribunal ignores the statutory guidelines while arriving at its finding, that lapse can itself be treated as a legal error a higher court can correct.
