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.

Company & Insolvency LawSupreme Court of India

Anish M Rawther @ Anees Mohammed Rawther v. Hafeez Ur Rahman & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2024 INSC 460Decided 14 Jun 2024
Civil Appeal No. 4120/2024 (Diary No. 15013/2022)
Justice Vikram Nath · Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Background

The respondent had filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC against the appellant for recovery of over Rs. 1.04 crore with interest. After a series of proceedings (including the Trial Court directing a 50% deposit as a condition for leave to defend, and that direction being upheld through a dismissed Special Leave Petition) the appellant never returned to the High Court to seek a variation of that order, as this Court's own earlier order had permitted. The respondent then asked the Trial Court to decree the suit outright since the appellant had not complied; the Trial Court refused, but the High Court reversed that refusal and directed the Trial Court to accept the respondent's request and pass a decree.

Decision Breakdown

The appellant argued before the Supreme Court that a moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 had come into effect, so the suit could not proceed: an argument the High Court had already rejected. But the Supreme Court found a more basic problem: while this appeal (challenging the High Court's order) was pending, and even before the Supreme Court's own December 2023 stay order, the Trial Court had already gone ahead and finally decided the underlying suit by passing a decree on 20 April 2023. Since that final decree was never shown to have been separately challenged, the suit itself was no longer pending, meaning this appeal, which only concerned an interim order made during the suit's pendency, had become pointless. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as infructuous, without addressing the IBC moratorium argument on its merits.

Lesson Learnt

An appeal against an interim order in ongoing litigation can become moot if the underlying case is finally decided while the appeal is still pending: litigants should keep track of the main proceeding's status and, if a decree is passed, address that decree directly (through appeal or other means) rather than continuing to pursue a challenge to an interim order that the final decree has effectively overtaken.

Anish M Rawther @ Anees Mohammed Rawther v. Hafeez Ur Rahman & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware