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.

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Alka Agrawal and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 489Decided 15 May 2026
Crl.A. No.-002537-002537 - 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 19305 of 2025)
Justice Manoj Misra · Justice N.V. Anjaria · Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Background

The appellants, a family and two of their companies, invested a total of Rs.2.51 crore with the respondents between 2016 onward for setting up a resort at Tadoba, Maharashtra, on a promise of 24% annual interest paid quarterly. The respondents neither paid interest nor returned the principal by the promised date, and admitted in writing to having received the money while denying any obligation to pay interest or repay by a fixed date. After police refused to register an FIR and courts held the dispute was civil/a "loan" transaction outside the criminal law, the appellants also filed a complaint under the MPID Act, which the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) rejected, holding the transaction was a loan and not a "deposit" under the Act.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's view was wholly erroneous in law. It ruled that the definition of "deposit" under Section 2(c) of the MPID Act is wide, covering any receipt of money to be returned after a specified period, with or without interest, regardless of what label (such as "loan") is given to the transaction: the true test is the substance of the ingredients, not the nomenclature. It further held that private individuals who accept such deposits and default fraudulently fall within the definition of "Financial Establishment" under Section 2(d) of the Act. The Court also clarified that failure to establish IPC offences (like cheating or criminal breach of trust) does not bar recourse under the separate, independent statutory scheme of the MPID Act, since the two operate in distinct legal fields. The High Court's order was set aside and the appellants were held entitled to proceed under Section 3 of the MPID Act.

Lesson Learnt

Calling a money transaction a "loan" does not automatically place it outside the protection of depositor-protection laws like the MPID Act. Courts will look at the real nature of the transaction, not its label. Failure of a criminal complaint (e.g., under IPC) does not by itself defeat a separate remedy available under a special statute like the MPID Act.

Alka Agrawal and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware