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 respondent company used duty-paid fuel (Low Sulphur Heavy Stock, or "LSHS") to generate steam and electricity, which it then used to manufacture fertilizer: a product exempt from excise duty. The company claimed CENVAT tax credit on the duty it had paid for this fuel, arguing it was entitled to the credit even though the end product was tax-exempt; the tax department disputed this and sought to recover the credit, along with interest and penalty. After conflicting rulings by tribunals and the Gujarat High Court, and recognising a conflict between two of its own earlier Supreme Court decisions on the same point, a two-judge Bench referred the matter to this larger Bench to resolve which earlier ruling should prevail.
The Court examined the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002, in particular Rule 6, which generally disallows credit on inputs used to manufacture exempt goods but carves out an exception for most other inputs, except fuel, when dutiable and exempt goods are both produced. After closely analysing this structure and the earlier precedents cited by both sides, the Court held there was in fact no real conflict between the two earlier Supreme Court decisions, and confirmed that the correct legal position is that CENVAT credit on fuel-type inputs (like the LSHS here) cannot be claimed when the fuel is used, even indirectly via generated steam/electricity, to manufacture an exempt final product. It allowed the tax department's appeals, set aside the order permitting the credit (except for a portion already remanded for other reasons), and answered the connected Special Leave Petition in the same terms.
Businesses cannot claim CENVAT (now GST-predecessor) tax credit on inputs, including fuel used to generate power, that are ultimately consumed in producing a tax-exempt product; the "fuel exception" in the credit rules is narrower than it might first appear and does not create a blanket exemption from this general rule.
