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 appellant, former Chairman and Managing Director of Central Distillery and Breweries Ltd. (CDBL), sold his family's controlling shareholding to the Shaw Wallace Company group in 1994 and separately signed a 10-year non-compete agreement (Deed of Covenant) restraining him from the liquor business, for which he received Rs. 6.6 crore. The tax department treated this Rs. 6.6 crore as taxable compensation for "termination of management" under Section 28(ii)(a) of the Income Tax Act, a position upheld by the Assessing Officer and a Tribunal member, while other Tribunal members and ultimately the Delhi High Court held it was not taxable under that provision, but the High Court went further and held it was taxable anyway, as part of the sale consideration for the shares (a question nobody had actually asked the High Court to decide).
The Supreme Court first held that the High Court's judgment was procedurally invalid because Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act required it to decide only the specific "substantial question of law" it had formulated (whether the amount was taxable under Section 28(ii)(a)): it could not, without notice to the parties, decide an entirely different question of whether the amount was a taxable capital gain. On the merits, the Court held that the Income Tax Department cannot second-guess legitimate commercial/business decisions between parties dealing at arm's length, and that a genuine non-compete payment (for restraining an expert for 10 years from re-entering a business he had run for 35 years) is a capital receipt, not taxable income, for the pre-2003 assessment year in question (non-compete fees only became taxable from 1 April 2003 under a new provision). The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment.
Tax authorities cannot override a taxpayer's own commercial judgment about the value or purpose of a payment, and courts hearing tax appeals are legally confined to deciding only the specific legal question that was properly framed, not a different question introduced later without giving the parties a chance to respond.
