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.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the RBI announced a loan repayment moratorium (March-August 2020) allowing borrowers to defer EMIs, but banks continued to charge compound/penal interest ("interest on interest") on the deferred amounts. A batch of writ petitions by trade associations, individual borrowers and businesses across sectors (MSMEs, power, real estate, and others) sought a complete waiver of interest during the moratorium, an extension of the moratorium period, sector-specific relief packages, and a challenge to a government scheme that only waived "interest on interest" for loans up to Rs. 2 crore in specified categories. The petitioners argued the government and RBI's response to the pandemic's economic fallout was inadequate and arbitrary, including an alleged failure of the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) to perform its statutory duties.
The Supreme Court declined to grant a blanket waiver of all interest during the moratorium, to extend the moratorium period itself, or to order sector-wise or additional relief packages, holding these were matters of economic policy for the Government and RBI and that courts should not ordinarily interfere in fiscal policy absent manifest arbitrariness. It also held the NDMA had not failed in its statutory duty under Section 13 of the Disaster Management Act, since that provision uses the discretionary word "may" and the NDMA had in fact given recommendations to the RBI. However, the Court found no rational basis for restricting the "waiver of interest on interest" benefit to loans up to Rs. 2 crore and specific categories, calling the eligibility conditions arbitrary and discriminatory. It further held that since repayment was deferred (not waived) via the moratorium, charging compound/penal interest, which is meant to penalise willful default, could not be justified when non-payment during the moratorium was never willful. The Court directed that no interest on interest/penal/compound interest be charged for the moratorium period for any borrower, and any amount already collected under that head must be refunded or credited against future instalments.
Courts generally defer to the Executive's economic and financial policy choices during a crisis, but will strike down specific conditions within a relief scheme that are arbitrary or irrationally discriminatory: here, resulting in the "interest on interest" waiver being extended to all borrowers, not just those in favoured categories or below an arbitrary loan-size cutoff.
