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.
7878 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.
Union Bank of India had mortgaged property from Rajat Infrastructure securing loans to two borrower companies. When the loans went unpaid, the Bank auctioned the mortgaged property under the SARFAESI Act, and M/s Sunview Assets Pvt. Ltd. emerged as the highest bidder for Rs 65.62 crore. Litigation over the auction reached the Supreme Court multiple times, and the Court repeatedly granted Sunview extensions (citing the Covid-19 lockdown) to pay the balance sale price, with the last such order in May 2020 fixing payment within two months of the lockdown lifting, plus interest. Sunview eventually filed a fresh application asking the Court to direct the Bank to issue the sale certificate, claiming it had now paid the full amount.
The Supreme Court found that Sunview had not actually complied with its own May 2020 order, even giving the benefit of an extended limitation period (up to February 2022 due to Covid), the balance amount with interest should have been paid by 30 April 2022, but the buyer instead trickled in payments over months without ever fully accounting for how the amounts matched the Court's directions. The Court held that Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules fixes a strict cap on how long payment of the balance sale price can be extended (not exceeding three months beyond the confirmation of sale), and that its own wide powers under Article 142 of the Constitution cannot be used to override this express statutory rule or effectively rewrite it. The Court also criticized the growing practice of filing repeated "miscellaneous applications" in an already-disposed appeal to reopen or work around a final judgment, calling it an abuse of process, and dismissed the application as not maintainable, while leaving Sunview free to pursue any other lawful remedy, including seeking a refund of what it had deposited.
Statutory deadlines for paying an auction sale price (such as under the SARFAESI Rules) cannot be indefinitely stretched through repeated applications to the Supreme Court, and once a case is finally decided, parties cannot use "miscellaneous applications" as a backdoor to modify or escape compliance with the judgment.
