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 respondent dealer purchased textile cloth in bulk, cut it to the size of ladies' salwar-kameez suits, and carried out embroidery and "peco" work on the edges, selling the result as an unstitched "suit" without doing the final stitching. A tax survey led the Assessing Authority to tax this product at the higher 12.5% residuary rate as an "unclassified" item, rather than treating it as tax-exempt "textile" or taxing it at the lower 4% rate for "textile made ups." The dealer's appeals succeeded before the first appellate authority (4% rate) and then before the Commercial Tax Tribunal (fully tax-exempt as "textile"), and the Allahabad High Court dismissed the Department's revision petition in limine. The Commissioner of Commercial Tax then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that once the purchased textile material is cut to size and embroidered, it ceases to be a mere "textile" under the exemption entry and becomes a distinct commercial article, so the Tribunal was wrong to treat it as fully exempt. It also rejected the first appellate authority's classification of the product as a "textile made up" taxable at 4%, reasoning that this entry must be read together with the similar items listed alongside it (bedsheets, pillow covers) and that a "made up" article is one that has actually been stitched into a final product, which this unstitched suit was not. Since the goods did not fit any specific exemption or lower-rate entry, the Court held they correctly fell under the residuary entry taxed at 12.5%, restoring the original assessment order and setting aside both the Tribunal's and the High Court's rulings.
When interpreting tax schedules, a general or residuary entry applies only after ruling out all more specific entries, and words in a tax schedule must be read in their ordinary, common-parlance sense and in the context of the words immediately surrounding them (the principle of "ejusdem generis"), not viewed in isolation.
