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.
An importer failed to clear CTV kit goods kept in a customs warehouse at ICD Faridabad within the permitted one-year bond period and also did not pay warehouse rent. The warehouse-keeper, Associated Container Terminal Ltd., auctioned the goods under the Customs Act to recover its dues, and the sale proceeds were partly appropriated for customs duty. A dispute arose over whether customs duty should be calculated based on the value of goods on the date they should have been cleared (as per an earlier Supreme Court ruling in Kesoram Rayon) or based on the actual sale price achieved at auction, and over which claim, customs duty or warehouse charges, had priority in the sale proceeds. The Delhi High Court ruled in favour of the warehouse-keeper, prompting the Union of India to appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the earlier Kesoram Rayon ruling did not apply here because that case concerned duty owed directly by an importer who sought clearance, whereas this was a case of goods never cleared and instead sold off under Section 63 for recovery of warehouse dues. Relying on a binding Central Board of Excise and Customs circular, the Court held that customs duty on such unclaimed/uncleared goods must be calculated by treating the actual sale proceeds as the "cum-duty price" (working the duty backward from the sale price), not based on duty payable at the time of the original bill of entry. The appeal was disposed of with directions to recalculate the customs duty on this basis and to distribute the sale proceeds according to the statutory priority order in Section 150(2) of the Customs Act.
When imported goods are left unclaimed and auctioned to pay off warehouse charges, customs duty is calculated on the real amount the goods fetched at auction, not on some earlier notional value, and government circulars binding on tax authorities can determine how such calculations must be made.
