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

Amit Katyal v. Union of India

Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026 INSC 702Decided 14 Jul 2026
W.P.(Crl.) No.-000057-000057 - 2026
Justice Joymalya Bagchi · Justice V. Mohana

Background

The petitioner, a promoter of a real-estate company facing multiple cheating complaints from homebuyers, was prosecuted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) before the Special Court at Gurugram. He initially sought quashing of the prosecution but narrowed his request during arguments to a transfer of the case from Gurugram to the Special PMLA Court in Delhi, pointing out that a related predicate criminal case had already been transferred there by another bench of the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Court explained that a PMLA prosecution can be lawfully instituted in any Special Court within whose jurisdiction "proceeds of crime" were generated, concealed, possessed, used, or projected as untainted property. Since part of the illicit proceeds (cash, jewellery, vehicles, fixed deposits) had been attached in Delhi, and the connected predicate offence had already been transferred to a Delhi court, the Supreme Court held that both Gurugram and Delhi had simultaneous jurisdiction. In the interest of giving full effect to the law requiring the PMLA case and its predicate offence to be tried together, the Court ordered the PMLA prosecution transferred to the Special PMLA Court in Saket, Delhi, to continue from the stage it had reached in Gurugram.

Lesson Learnt

Because money-laundering offences can span multiple locations (where the crime happened, where its proceeds were hidden or used), more than one court can have valid jurisdiction over the same PMLA case, and the Supreme Court can transfer such cases to keep a linked predicate offence and its PMLA prosecution before the same court system.

Amit Katyal v. Union of India – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware