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.

Civil Property & InheritanceSupreme Court of India

Asha Rani Gupta vs. Sri Vineet Kumar

Civil AppealDecided 11 Jul 2022
Civil Appeal No. 4682 of 2022
Dinesh Maheshwari · Aniruddha Bose

Background

A landlady filed a suit in Aligarh for eviction and recovery of rent against her tenant, who denied that she was his true landlord and did not pay or deposit rent during the litigation. The Trial Court struck off the tenant's defence under Order XV Rule 5 CPC for non-payment of rent, and the Revisional Court upheld this. The High Court, however, reversed that decision and restored the tenant's defence, prompting the landlady to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that Order XV Rule 5 CPC requires a defendant-tenant to pay or deposit admitted or determined rent during the suit, and failure to do so, without any bona fide dispute genuinely accepted by the court, justifies striking off the defence. The Court found the tenant had shown "deliberate defiance" by not depositing any rent and that his belated deposits, made only after the High Court's order, could not cure the earlier default. It held the High Court's reasoning (that the tenant "deserves some indulgence") was unsupported by any actual finding and was merely assumptive, especially since the Trial Court's and Revisional Court's factual findings against the tenant were undisturbed. The Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the Trial Court's order striking off the defence, directing the long-pending 2011 suit to be disposed of expeditiously.

Lesson Learnt

In rent disputes, a tenant who disputes the landlord's title but does not pay or deposit the admitted or court-determined rent during the case risks having his defence struck off entirely. Courts will not allow indulgence for non-payment without a genuine, well-founded reason, and belated payments made only to comply with a later order do not erase an earlier default.

Asha Rani Gupta vs. Sri Vineet Kumar – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware