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.
Between 2014 and 2018, multiple job aspirants and their relatives lodged police complaints alleging they paid bribes (ranging from roughly ₹2.4 lakh to ₹40 lakh each) to secure Driver, Conductor, and Engineer posts in the Tamil Nadu Metropolitan Transport Corporation, with the money allegedly routed to persons connected to the Minister, V. Senthil Balaji. Over several years, police repeatedly filed charge-sheets that left out anti-corruption charges against the Minister, one complainant appeared to switch sides and later sought "de novo" (from-scratch) reinvestigation in a way that would have wiped out the existing evidence, and one case was quashed based on a private compromise between a complainant and the accused despite the public-corruption nature of the allegations. After anti-corruption charges were finally added, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) opened a money-laundering investigation and issued summons, which the Minister and others challenged; the Madras High Court both quashed the ED's summons (01.09.2022) and separately ordered a sweeping de novo investigation (31.10.2022), prompting appeals to the Supreme Court from the ED, several job aspirants/victims, an anti-corruption NGO, and some accused persons.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order for de novo investigation, holding that wiping out years of existing investigation and evidence was a drastic, near-unprecedented step unsupported by the facts, and directed that further investigation continue, including the corruption charges the police had unaccountably kept dropping. The Court also set aside the High Court's order quashing the ED's summons, rejecting arguments that a stay or compromise in the underlying criminal cases barred the ED from acting, and held that since several of the predicate offences (including provisions of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act) were scheduled offences under the PMLA, the ED's money-laundering probe was validly initiated and could proceed. A separate appeal challenging a High Court order letting the ED inspect (not copy) trial court records was dismissed as procedurally sound, and an appeal about an expired investigation deadline was dismissed as no longer relevant since a further report had already been filed. Contempt petitions against police officials and an application to constitute a Special Investigation Team were both declined for now, with the Court noting that a compromised, confused chain of complainants, accused, and investigators, not the police alone, was responsible for the delays, while leaving the door open to revisit both requests if future obstruction is shown.
Private compromises between a complainant and an accused cannot be used to bury allegations of public corruption or bribery in government recruitment. Courts will look past a "settlement" where the real victim is the public interest, not just the individual complainant. It is also a reminder that once an underlying offence is a "scheduled offence" under the PMLA, a stay or quashing dispute in the ordinary criminal case does not automatically stop a parallel money-laundering investigation.
