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 Cantonment Board had awarded three road-repair contracts to the respondent contractor around 2000-2001, each containing an arbitration clause. After completing the work and receiving final payment by 2003, the contractor later demanded additional reimbursement for price variation in materials, labour and fuel, raising this claim first in September 2003 and repeating it in various letters over the following years. In November 2006 and January 2007 it formally demanded appointment of an arbitrator, but the Board did not act. Only in November 2010 did the Board formally reject the request. The contractor then filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act in November 2013 to get a court-appointed arbitrator, and the High Court allowed it, treating the three-year limitation period as running from the 2010 rejection letter.
The Supreme Court held the High Court was wrong on limitation. Relying on its recent precedents (Geo Miller v. Rajasthan Vidyut Utpadan Nigam and Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation), the Court explained that once a party demands arbitration and sets a deadline (here, 30 days from the January 2007 letter) and the other side fails to appoint an arbitrator within that window, the limitation clock for a Section 11 application starts running from the expiry of that deadline, here, from 12 February 2007, and a later formal rejection letter (2010) cannot restart a limitation period that has already begun running, under Section 9 of the Limitation Act. Since the Section 11 application was filed only in November 2013, more than three years after February 2007, it was hopelessly time-barred. The Court also found the underlying claim itself was ex facie time-barred on the merits, since the price-variation demand was rejected in writing as far back as February 2010, over three years before the application was filed. The appeals were allowed and the High Court's order appointing an arbitrator was set aside.
When seeking court appointment of an arbitrator, the three-year limitation clock starts running from when your demand for arbitration is effectively refused or ignored past any deadline you yourself set: repeatedly writing reminder letters afterward does not extend or restart that limitation period, so a party must act promptly once the other side fails to respond.
