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 appellant shipping company owned a tug which it hired out to the New Mangalore Port Trust under a "Time Charter Agreement" for six months, with the company's own master and crew continuing to operate the vessel. Karnataka's tax authorities sought to register the company as a dealer and levy sales tax under Section 5C of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, treating the charter as a "transfer of the right to use goods": a deemed sale under Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution. The company argued this was purely a service contract (not a lease or transfer), since it retained full legal possession, custody and control of the tug throughout, and separately argued Karnataka had no power to tax a vessel's use within India's territorial waters at all. Both a Single Judge and a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court rejected the company's arguments and upheld the tax.
The Supreme Court held that whether a charter agreement amounts to a "transfer of the right to use goods" depends on whether effective control and possession of the vessel passed to the hirer, not merely on whether the contract is labelled a "time charter" or a "service", and on the facts, the Port Trust had obtained effective use and control of the tug for the charter period, satisfying the test for a deemed sale under Article 366(29A)(d). The Court held that the "situs" (location) of such a deemed sale is where the contract transferring the right to use is executed, and since the Charter Party Agreement was executed in Mangalore (within Karnataka), the state was entitled to levy sales tax regardless of whether the vessel actually operated in territorial waters, so the Court found it unnecessary to resolve the separate, broader constitutional question of a coastal state's taxing power over territorial waters, leaving that question open. The Court also rejected the company's late argument that the matter should be remanded to the tax authorities, since the company had argued the case entirely on merits throughout and could not seek a second round of adjudication after losing. The appeal was dismissed, with the Court confirming the transaction was taxable as a deemed sale.
A contract's label (such as "time charter" or "service agreement") does not determine its tax treatment: what matters is the real substance of the transaction, particularly whether effective control and use of goods actually passed to the other party, and businesses cannot avoid state sales tax simply by structuring an arrangement as a service rather than a transfer of use.
