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.
Landowners whose land was acquired for national highway projects were dissatisfied with the compensation fixed by the competent authority and referred their disputes to arbitration under the National Highways Act, 1956. When they challenged the arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act seeking higher compensation, some High Courts (and in one instance a civil court) went further than simply setting aside the awards: they actually enhanced the compensation themselves. The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) challenged this practice, arguing that courts have no power to modify an arbitral award under Section 34; they can only set it aside.
The Supreme Court held that Section 34 of the Arbitration Act only allows a court to set aside an arbitral award on limited grounds: it does not give the court power to modify, vary, or enhance the award itself, since the provision is modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law, which deliberately omits any power of modification (unlike the earlier Arbitration Act, 1940). Allowing courts to "modify" awards under the guise of "setting aside" would amount to the court exercising appellate powers over an arbitrator's decision, which defeats the object of minimal judicial interference in arbitration. However, despite declaring this point of law in NHAI's favour, the Court declined to actually disturb the specific enhanced-compensation orders in these particular appeals, noting that similarly placed landowners had already received the higher amounts from NHAI in other cases, the awards were 7-10 years old, and it would be unfair at this late stage to send the matter back for a fresh arbitration.
If you lose an arbitration case and go to court to challenge the award, the court can only cancel (set aside) a flawed award: it cannot rewrite the award or award you a different amount itself; a flawed award, once set aside, generally has to go back to fresh arbitration, not be substituted by the court's own figure.
