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.
The Central Government assigned the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) to investigate the Adarsh Group of Companies, directing that the investigation report be submitted within three months. After that period lapsed, SFIO arrested Rahul Modi and Mukesh Modi (and sought custody of a third person) on suspicion of fraud, and the accused were repeatedly remanded to custody by magistrates in Gurugram. The accused filed habeas corpus writ petitions in the Delhi High Court arguing their arrest was illegal since it occurred after the three-month investigation deadline had expired, and the High Court granted them interim bail; SFIO appealed that order to the Supreme Court, with a connected transfer petition concerning a related accused, Vivek Harivyasi.
The Supreme Court held that the three-month period specified for SFIO to submit its investigation report under Section 212(3) of the Companies Act is directory, not mandatory, and that its expiry does not strip SFIO of its power to investigate or arrest, especially since the Central Government had, in any event, granted an ex post facto extension. The Court also held that a habeas corpus petition is not the correct remedy to challenge a judicial remand order; such challenges must be raised before the proper appellate or revisional forum, and the High Court erred in entertaining the challenge on that basis. The Court set aside the High Court's interim bail order, directed the two accused to surrender before the Special Court, Gurugram by a specified date (with forfeiture of their bonds if they failed to appear), and disposed of the connected transfer petition in the same terms, clarifying it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the underlying fraud allegations.
A habeas corpus petition cannot be used to indirectly challenge the validity of a judicial remand order: that requires a proper appeal or revision; and statutory investigation deadlines that don't specify consequences for delay are generally treated as directory rather than fatal to the investigating agency's power to act.
