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

Amit Katyal & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 563Decided 21 May 2026
Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 31664 of 2026 (in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 67 of 2025)
Justice Pankaj Mithal · Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Background

In an earlier judgment dated 18.05.2026 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 67 of 2025, the Court had directed clubbing of two FIRs relating to the same set of allegations: one registered with the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Delhi (FIR No. 30/2019) and a later one in Gurugram, Haryana (FIR No. 439/2024), to avoid parallel investigations into the same transaction. However, the operative part of that judgment mistakenly directed the earlier Delhi FIR to be clubbed and transferred into the later Haryana FIR, which was the reverse of what the Court's own reasoning (in paragraphs 26-27) intended. The petitioners moved this application seeking correction of that clerical/operative error.

Decision Breakdown

The Court agreed that the relief granted in the original order was inconsistent with its own reasoning, since the Haryana FIR was found to arise from and duplicate the earlier Delhi FIR, it was the later FIR that should be clubbed into the earlier one, not the other way around. The State's objection that this improperly let the accused choose the investigating agency was rejected, since the modification did not select an agency but simply corrected which FIR absorbed which, consistent with the chronology already found in the judgment. The Court accordingly modified its 18.05.2026 order to direct that FIR No. 439/2024 (Gurugram) be clubbed and transferred into FIR No. 30/2019 (EOW, Delhi).

Lesson Learnt

Courts retain the power to correct a mismatch between the reasoning of a judgment and its operative directions through a clarification application, without reopening the merits: a useful reminder that clerical or drafting errors in an order's operative part can be fixed rather than requiring a fresh appeal.

Amit Katyal & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware