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.
In 1998, Uttar Pradesh issued a notification offering a tax rebate to industries that used fly ash (a waste product from thermal power plants) in manufacturing, to encourage industrial development and reduce an environmental hazard. Companies including Birla Corporation and Jai Prakash Associates set up or expanded factories and began commercial production relying on this promised rebate. In 2004, after a High Court ruling (later upheld by the Supreme Court) extended the rebate even to out-of-state manufacturers, which the State had not intended, the State rescinded the entire 1998 notification, cutting off the rebate even for companies that had already set up units and started production in reliance on it. The companies challenged this in the Allahabad High Court, which partly ruled in their favour by giving the rescinding notification only prospective effect; the State then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the law (Section 5 of the UP Trade Tax Act) gave the State power to grant rebates retrospectively but not to withdraw or rescind them retrospectively, so the 2004 notification could not be read as applying to industries that had already started production and complied with conditions before it was issued. The Court also rejected the State's argument of "supervening public interest" justifying the withdrawal, finding that the thermal power stations were still generating the same fly ash, the companies were still using it as intended, and the State's real motive was simply to avoid the extra cost of the earlier court ruling, which, by itself, is not a strong enough reason to go back on a promise already acted upon. Accordingly, both Birla Corporation and Jai Prakash Associates were held entitled to their rebate for the full originally-promised period (up to 2008 and 2014 respectively), though the actual refund amounts must still be verified by the tax authorities, including checking that the companies had not already passed on the tax burden to their own customers.
When the government makes a public promise (like a tax incentive) and people or businesses genuinely act on it, the government generally cannot go back on that promise retrospectively just because it later turns out to be more costly than expected: this is the legal principle of "promissory estoppel," and the burden is on the government to prove a truly overwhelming change in circumstances before it can be excused from its commitment.
