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.
UPPTCL engaged CG Power (formerly Crompton Greaves) to build a 765/400 kV power substation in Unnao, splitting the work into four separate contracts: supply of equipment, erection/commissioning, civil works, and operation & maintenance. Years later, a government audit (CAG) flagged that UPPTCL had failed to deduct "labour cess" (a welfare levy on construction costs under the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act) from the supply contract specifically, even though it had already been paid on the civil-works contract. UPPTCL then tried to recover about Rs. 2.6 crore by withholding payments and threatening to encash CG Power's bank guarantee, without ever actually assessing the cess through the legally prescribed process; the Allahabad High Court struck down UPPTCL's demand letters, and UPPTCL appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the labour cess under the Cess Act and BOCW Act applies only to genuine "building or other construction work," and that a pure supply contract for equipment and materials, which does not involve construction or deploy construction workers, falls outside the Act's definition of "contractor" and is not subject to the cess. The Court also held that even if cess had been properly due, UPPTCL could not simply recover it by unilaterally withholding bills or invoking a bank guarantee; the law requires a formal assessment and levy process, and recovery must follow the specific procedure laid down in the Cess Act and Rules. The Court further held that a CAG audit observation alone cannot be treated as conclusive proof of liability, since CAG reports are themselves subject to parliamentary scrutiny and are not binding findings. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court's order quashing UPPTCL's demand was upheld.
A government statutory cess can only be levied and recovered through the exact procedure the law prescribes, an auditor's objection is not a substitute for a proper assessment, and even in a composite project, each distinct type of contract (such as supply versus construction) must be examined on its own terms to see whether a given levy actually applies to it.
