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.
In March 2019, the Central Government issued notifications restricting the import of certain pulses, including peas and moong, and the Directorate General of Foreign Trade issued a related trade notice, citing concerns for domestic farmers' interests. A number of importers challenged these restrictions before different High Courts, arguing the government had exceeded its powers and acted contrary to the Foreign Trade Act's scheme, particularly its provision for "quantitative restrictions." To avoid conflicting rulings from different High Courts, the Union of India sought to have all these cases transferred to and consolidated before the Supreme Court, which agreed in June 2020 to hear and decide the common question itself.
The Supreme Court examined the interplay between Section 3(2) of the FTDR Act (the Central Government's general power to regulate imports) and Section 9A (a narrower, specific power to impose "quantitative restrictions" in defined circumstances), and held that Section 9A does not curtail or exhaust the government's broader power under Section 3(2): the two provisions operate independently. On that basis, the Court held the 2019 notifications and trade notice restricting pulse imports were validly issued under the government's general Section 3(2) power. It rejected importers' argument that reliance on earlier interim court orders protected their imports, noting most High Courts had already ruled against them and they had knowingly taken a commercial risk; any imports made relying on such interim orders would be treated as contrary to law and dealt with under the Customs Act. The Court expressly left open importers' separate statutory appeals against suspension/termination of their import-export codes, and dismissed the writ petitions underlying the transfer petitions, upholding the government's restrictions.
The government retains broad, independent power to restrict imports for policy reasons (such as protecting domestic farmers), and a narrower statutory provision for one kind of restriction does not automatically limit the government's wider general powers; businesses that import goods relying only on interim court orders, rather than a final favourable ruling, do so at their own risk.
