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

Bank of Baroda v. Farooq Ali Khan

Civil Appeal · 2025 INSC 253Decided 20 Feb 2025
Civil Appeal No. 2759/2025 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 18062 of 2024)
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Justice Manoj Misra

Background

Farooq Ali Khan had personally guaranteed loans taken by a corporate borrower, Associate Décor Limited, from a consortium of banks led by Bank of Baroda. After the company defaulted, Bank of Baroda invoked the personal guarantee and moved the National Company Law Tribunal (as Adjudicating Authority) under the IBC to start personal insolvency proceedings against him. The Adjudicating Authority appointed a resolution professional to examine the claim, but before that professional could even submit a report, Khan went to the Karnataka High Court, which used its writ powers to halt the insolvency process by ruling that his guarantee liability had already been waived.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court jumped the gun. Relying on its earlier ruling in Dilip B. Jiwrajka v. Union of India, the Court explained that under Sections 95 to 100 of the IBC, no judicial determination of issues like waiver or limitation is meant to happen until the resolution professional submits a recommendatory report and the Adjudicating Authority then decides under Section 100 whether to admit the case. Since the process hadn't even reached that stage, the High Court had no business deciding disputed facts about the guarantee under Article 226 and effectively short-circuited a complete statutory scheme with its own checks and balances. The Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the proceedings to the stage of the resolution professional's report.

Lesson Learnt

Courts will generally not let writ petitions be used to jump ahead of a specialised statutory process (like IBC insolvency proceedings) before it has run its proper course: factual disputes such as whether a debt or guarantee still exists must first go through the process Parliament designed (resolution professional's report, then adjudication), not be decided prematurely by a High Court.

Bank of Baroda v. Farooq Ali Khan – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware