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 the early, chaotic rollout of GST in mid-2017, the government's electronic system for auto-matching invoices (Forms GSTR-1, GSTR-2, GSTR-2A, GSTR-3) was not yet functional, so businesses were required to file a simplified stop-gap return, Form GSTR-3B, based on their own estimates. Bharti Airtel later discovered, once GSTR-2A became operational in September 2018, that it had actually overpaid roughly Rs. 923 crores in cash for July-September 2017 because it could not access real-time input tax credit (ITC) data at the time. Airtel asked to rectify its GSTR-3B returns for that earlier period so it could use its ITC instead of cash, but a government circular (dated 29.12.2017) barred rectification for the period in which the error occurred. The Delhi High Court read down that circular and allowed Airtel to rectify its past returns; the Union of India appealed.
The Supreme Court allowed the government's appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that registered taxpayers are statutorily obliged to maintain their own books of account and self-assess their tax liability and ITC eligibility: they cannot blame non-functioning government software for their own failure to accurately self-assess, since GST merely digitised an obligation that existed even before GST. The Court held that Section 39(9) of the CGST Act expressly permits rectifying errors only in the return for the month or quarter in which the error is noticed, not retroactively in the return for the period the error relates to, because retroactive changes would have a cascading, destabilising effect on other taxpayers' linked records. The Court found Airtel's claim of relying on non-functional GSTR-2A to be an unconvincing excuse, since the primary source for self-assessment was always its own invoices and accounts, not the online portal, and that allowing unilateral rectification would risk "chaotic" disruption of the wider tax administration.
Taxpayers cannot excuse errors in self-assessed returns by pointing to glitches in a government's digital filing system: the underlying legal duty to maintain accurate records and self-assess tax liability rests with the taxpayer, and correction mechanisms built into tax law generally operate prospectively (in the period the mistake is discovered), not retroactively.
