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 appellants were the Managing Director and a Director of a company (M/s SPML Infra Limited, formerly Subhas Project Marketing Limited) that had contracted with the Government of Arunachal Pradesh in 1993 to build the Nurang Hydel Power Project. Years after the project was commissioned and its defect-liability period had expired, a dispute arose over unpaid maintenance charges, and the Government filed a criminal complaint alleging the company had supplied sub-standard turbine components in violation of contract specifications. A chargesheet for cheating and conspiracy was filed in 2004, but the appellants only learned of it in 2017, after which the High Court refused to quash the proceedings against them.
The Supreme Court held that for an offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC, there must be specific allegations of fraudulent or dishonest intention existing from the very start of the transaction: a mere breach of contract, discovered years later, is not enough. The Court noted the company had replaced the defective turbines once the problem was found, which was inconsistent with any intention to cheat from the outset, and that the company itself (as opposed to its individual directors) had never even been made an accused, with no specific allegations showing the appellants were personally in charge of the company's affairs to justify vicarious liability. Applying its settled precedents on when courts can quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process, the Court found no prima facie case was made out and that continuing the 20-year-old prosecution would amount to undue harassment. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the FIR and chargesheet were quashed as against these two appellants (while proceedings continued against other co-accused).
A commercial or contractual dispute, such as an allegation of supplying sub-standard goods, does not automatically become a criminal case of cheating; criminal liability requires proof of dishonest intent right from the start of the deal, and company directors cannot be prosecuted merely by virtue of their position without specific allegations connecting them personally to the offence.
