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.
Srei Equipment Finance, a financial creditor, had restructured a corporate debtor's loan into two facilities in 2016. After an initial Section 7 insolvency application was withdrawn as premature, a fresh application was filed claiming a specific amount remained outstanding. Based on the corporate debtor's own prior admissions and a supplementary affidavit, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) admitted the application and appointed a Resolution Professional. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), however, reversed this, holding that the NCLT had wrongly relied on a document from an earlier, withdrawn petition and that there was no evidence the claimed amount was actually outstanding.
The Supreme Court found the NCLAT's reasoning incorrect on every count. The document it treated as an inadmissible "pleading from a withdrawn petition" was in fact a counter affidavit filed by the corporate debtor itself, containing a clear admission of the outstanding debt, not evidence offered by the creditor that could be excluded on that technical ground. The NCLT had properly weighed this admission together with a supplementary affidavit and supporting documents in concluding that a loan amount remained due. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the NCLAT's order and restored the NCLT's order admitting the insolvency application, directing that the resolution process resume from where it had been interrupted. Two connected appeals arising from the same dispute were disposed of on the same basis, and an intervenor was permitted to withdraw its application to pursue relief elsewhere.
In insolvency proceedings, a corporate debtor's own admissions made in earlier court filings can be used as proof of an outstanding debt, and an appellate tribunal cannot discard such evidence merely because it originated in connection with an earlier, withdrawn application: what matters is the substance of what was admitted, not the procedural history of the filing that contains it.
