Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

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.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal 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 ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

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.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

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.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

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.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

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.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

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.

Civil Property & InheritanceSupreme Court of India

Ajanta LLP vs Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha d/b/a Casio Computer Co. Ltd.

Civil AppealDecided 4 Feb 2022
Civil Appeal No. 1052 of 2022
L. Nageswara Rao · B.R. Gavai

Background

Casio sued Ajanta LLP in the Delhi High Court, alleging that Ajanta's "ORPAT FX-991ES PLUS" calculator copied the registered design and trademark of Casio's "CASIO FX-991ES PLUS" calculator. After mediation, the parties signed a Settlement Agreement in 2019 under which Ajanta agreed not to use the design or the marks "FX-991ES PLUS"/"FX"/"991," and the High Court passed a consent decree in these terms. Ajanta later sought to modify the decree, claiming a typographical/settlement error, arguing the agreement was only meant to cover "FX-991ES PLUS" as a whole, not the standalone generic term "FX," and that it should be free to keep using "FX." The High Court dismissed this modification application, and Ajanta appealed.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the consent decree as originally worded. Reviewing months of email correspondence between the parties' lawyers, the Court found no genuine misunderstanding: the final settlement language restricting use of "FX" and "991" separately was communicated clearly and went unopposed by Ajanta before signing. The Court reaffirmed that a consent decree, once validly entered, creates an "estoppel by judgment" and can only be reopened if it is shown to be vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, or a genuine, obvious mistake, not merely because one party later regrets specific terms it did not object to at the time.

Lesson Learnt

Once you sign a settlement agreement and a court passes a decree based on it, you generally cannot get it reworded later merely by claiming you misunderstood a term. Courts will hold parties, especially those represented by lawyers through extended negotiations, to the plain terms they agreed to.

Ajanta LLP vs Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha d/b/a Casio Computer Co. Ltd. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware