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.
A company that had exported goods between 1988 and 1993 applied for a premium under a Replenishment (REP) import licence scheme tied to the government's Exim (import-export) policy. Before the premium could be paid, the government discontinued the scheme and declined to pay the claimed amount. The company filed a consumer complaint, and the District Consumer Forum, the State Commission, and finally the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) all ruled in the company's favour, treating the denial of the premium as a deficiency in service. The Ministry of Commerce appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that providing trade-policy incentives is not a "service" at all, so the consumer fora had no jurisdiction over the dispute in the first place.
The Supreme Court examined the definitions of "consumer," "service," and "deficiency" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and held that the Exim policy's incentive scheme is an instrument of the government's fiscal and trade policy, not a service rendered to exporters for consideration. Relying on its own precedent that a statutory examination board does not "serve" students who sit for an exam, the Court reasoned that a company availing itself of a government policy incentive is similarly not a consumer availing of a service. Because the underlying claim did not arise from a service-provider relationship, the consumer fora never had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint at all. The Court therefore allowed the Ministry's appeal and set aside the NCDRC's order, with no order as to costs.
Not every benefit or incentive a citizen receives from the government counts as a "service" under consumer protection law: if a scheme is essentially a policy instrument (like a trade incentive) rather than a service rendered for consideration, a consumer forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes about it, and the claimant must pursue other legal remedies instead.
