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 State of Haryana had entered into a Build-Operate-Transfer agreement with G.F. Toll Road for two highway projects, with disputes to go to a three-member arbitration panel (each side naming one arbitrator, with a third appointed under Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA) rules). When a dispute arose, the ICA objected to the State's nominee arbitrator, a retired government engineer, as potentially biased, and when the State asked for 30 days to name a replacement, the ICA went ahead and appointed a substitute itself. The State's bid to have this appointment struck down in the civil courts and the Punjab and Haryana High Court failed, with the High Court ruling the State should instead raise its jurisdictional objection before the arbitral tribunal itself, prompting this further appeal.
The Supreme Court held that under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a substitute arbitrator must be appointed by the same procedure used for the original appointment, meaning the State itself, not the ICA, had the right to name its own substitute nominee. The Court also found the original objection to the State's first nominee was unjustified: he had retired from government service over ten years earlier, and mere past employment, without more, does not create a reasonable apprehension of bias. Because the ICA improperly usurped the State's right to nominate before the State's requested 30-day window had even expired, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment. However, by the time of the hearing both sides had agreed to replace the entire three-member panel with a single sole arbitrator (a retired Supreme Court judge), so the appeal was disposed of on that consensual basis rather than by reviving the original three-member tribunal dispute.
When an arbitration agreement lets each party pick its own arbitrator, a third-party institution administering the arbitration cannot simply step in and appoint a substitute on a party's behalf before giving that party a fair chance to name its own replacement, and a past (not current) employment relationship, standing alone, is not automatically enough to disqualify someone as biased.
