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.
Under GST law, a business that buys inputs taxed at a higher rate than the rate charged on its own output ("inverted duty structure") can end up with unutilised input tax credit (ITC) sitting unused. Section 54(3) of the CGST Act allows refund of this accumulated credit, but Rule 89(5), framed to work out how much refund is due, defined "Net ITC" to cover only credit on input goods, excluding credit on input services, even though many businesses incur GST on services (like job-work, transport, etc.) as part of their inputs too. The Gujarat High Court had struck down this restrictive formula as going beyond what Section 54(3) allowed, while the Madras High Court had upheld it, creating conflicting rulings that both sides appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that Section 54(3) itself only promises a refund "as may be prescribed," meaning Parliament deliberately left the government room to prescribe a formula: it does not guarantee refund of all unutilised ITC in every case of an inverted duty structure. Reading the statute's language and structure as a whole, the Court concluded that excluding input services from the refund formula was a valid policy choice within the rule-making power, not something that made Rule 89(5) illegal or unconstitutional; courts cannot rewrite a workable formula just because it produces some inequitable outcomes. It therefore upheld the Madras High Court's view and overturned the Gujarat High Court's view, dismissing the appeals of the businesses (assessees) and allowing the Union of India's appeals, while also formally urging the GST Council to reconsider and fix the anomaly as a matter of policy.
Not every tax benefit a statute mentions is available without conditions, where a law says a refund will be given "as prescribed," the government's detailed rules fixing the formula will generally be upheld even if they produce an outcome some taxpayers see as unfair, unless the rule is shown to exceed what the law actually authorises.
