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.

Contempt of CourtSupreme Court of India

Baidya Nath Choudhary v. Dr. Sree Surendra Kumar Singh

Civil Appeal · 2025 INSC 74Decided 8 Jan 2025
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 1188 of 2018 (in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017)
Justice J.K. Maheshwari · Justice Rajesh Bindal

Background

The petitioner, a lecturer at a college affiliated with Magadh University, had his absorption into a permanent post approved by a one-man commission (headed by a retired judge) in 2014, a decision the Supreme Court confirmed in 2017 subject to him proving continuous service. The University subsequently gave conflicting orders about the effective date of his absorption (shifting between 1976, 1993, and 1995), and the State of Bihar refused to release his salary arrears, claiming he had not actually worked during the disputed period; his pension was also put on hold due to related contempt proceedings alleging that some absorbed employees had wrongly received pay for periods they did not work.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found that resolving whether the petitioner actually worked, and therefore what salary/pension arrears he is owed, required a factual enquiry that a contempt petition was not the appropriate forum to conduct. Rather than deciding the arrears itself, the Court disposed of the contempt petition with structured directions: the petitioner must submit his claim with supporting documents to the University's Registrar/Vice-Chancellor, who must hold a fact-finding enquiry and decide on salary and pension arrears within set timeframes, with any dissatisfied party free to approach the High Court afterward.

Lesson Learnt

A contempt petition is meant to enforce compliance with a court's earlier order, not to resolve fresh factual disputes (like disputed working days or pay calculations). When such disputes arise, courts will often route them back to the appropriate administrative or fact-finding body with a clear timeline, rather than adjudicate the facts themselves.

Baidya Nath Choudhary v. Dr. Sree Surendra Kumar Singh – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware