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.
A cooperative bank gave a cash-credit loan to a company (the corporate debtor) in 2012, which went into default. The bank tried to recover the dues first by invoking the SARFAESI Act, but the company got an interim order from the Calcutta High Court restraining the bank's SARFAESI action, on the ground that the bank, being a cooperative bank, may not be entitled to use that law at all. While that writ petition was still pending in the High Court, the bank instead filed an application under Section 7 of the IBC before the NCLT to start insolvency proceedings against the company. The company's representative (the appellant) argued this application was filed beyond the three-year limitation period and should be thrown out, but both the NCLT and the NCLAT allowed the insolvency case to proceed.
The Supreme Court held that applications under Section 7 of the IBC are governed by a three-year limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act (running from the date of default), but that delay can still be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act even without a separate formal application for condonation, so long as sufficient cause is shown on the record. It further held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which excludes time spent bona fide pursuing a remedy in the wrong forum, does apply to IBC proceedings, and the word "Court" in Section 14 should be read broadly to include tribunals and even SARFAESI forums. Crucially, the Court clarified that the benefit of Section 14 exclusion is available even while the earlier proceeding (the SARFAESI-related writ petition) is still pending and has not yet terminated, not only after it ends. Applying this, the time the bank spent pursuing the SARFAESI route and defending the High Court litigation was validly excluded, making the Section 7 application timely. The appeal was accordingly dismissed and the insolvency proceedings against the company were allowed to continue.
A creditor (or any party) who has been genuinely and diligently pursuing a parallel legal remedy in good faith does not automatically lose the right to later invoke the IBC on limitation grounds: courts will exclude that period under Section 5/Section 14 of the Limitation Act even if the earlier proceeding hasn't yet concluded, provided there is no bad faith or negligence.
