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.

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Ajay Vijh v. Indian Banks Association

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 670Decided 7 Jul 2026
Civil Appeal (arising out of Diary No. 10787/2024)
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Justice Alok Aradhe

Background

Ajay Vijh, an advocate empanelled with Canara Bank, gave a legal opinion in 2015 on a property offered as loan collateral. The Bank later claimed the opinion was negligent because it missed an earlier partial sale of the property, removed him from its panel, and, without giving him notice or a hearing, got his name entered in the "Caution List," a blacklist-type mechanism maintained by the Indian Banks' Association (IBA) under RBI guidelines, with a remark accusing him of giving a wrong legal opinion. This listing damaged his professional standing broadly, causing other banks to end his empanelment too. When he challenged the listing in a writ petition, the Allahabad High Court dismissed it as not maintainable, reasoning that the IBA is not "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226 regardless of whether IBA qualifies as "State" under Article 12, because Article 226's protection extends more broadly to any person or authority performing public functions when fundamental rights are at stake: here, the appellant's right to practise his profession under Article 19(1)(g). On the merits, the Court declared his inclusion in the Caution List "impermissible and without jurisdiction" and ordered his name removed immediately, holding that allegations of professional negligence or misconduct against an advocate fall within the Bar Council's exclusive disciplinary domain under the Advocates Act, not a bank-run blacklist created without any hearing. The Court went further, directing the Bar Council of India to conduct a performance audit of its own disciplinary mechanisms and proposing the creation of a "National Legal Academy" for structured continuing legal education for lawyers, and kept the matter listed for further directions on those points.

Lesson Learnt

Being placed on a bank or industry-body blacklist without notice or a hearing can be challenged in the High Courts under Article 226 even if the body isn't formally part of "the State," whenever a fundamental right like the right to practise a profession is affected; and complaints about a lawyer's professional competence must go through the Bar Council's disciplinary process, not informal blacklisting by third parties.

Ajay Vijh v. Indian Banks Association – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware