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.

Uncategorized (needs manual review)Supreme Court of India

C. Manjamma & Anr. vs The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Civil AppealDecided 29 Mar 2022
Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 2022
Dinesh Maheshwari · Aniruddha Bose

Background

A driver of an auto-rickshaw died of cardiac arrest while on duty, and his wife and mother claimed compensation before the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Davanagere, who awarded them about Rs. 4.16 lakh with interest, relying on the FIR, inquest and post-mortem records. The insurer appealed, and the Karnataka High Court reversed the award, holding there was no evidence linking the death to the strain of driving and that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to award compensation. The claimants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong to interfere, because the Commissioner's finding, that the 30-year-old driver's cardiac arrest was caused by the strain of his job, was a possible view based on the documentary evidence on record (FIR, inquest mahazar, post-mortem and FSL reports), and was not perverse or unsupported by evidence. The Court explained that under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, a High Court can only interfere on a "substantial question of law," which arises only when a finding is perverse or entirely without legal evidence, not merely because the High Court would have assessed the same evidence differently. Distinguishing the precedent the insurer relied on (which involved a cleaner, not a driver, and different facts), the Court restored the Commissioner's original compensation award in full.

Lesson Learnt

A workman's compensation claim, once supported by cogent documentary evidence and accepted by the fact-finding Commissioner, cannot be overturned by a higher court simply by re-weighing the same evidence: appellate interference in compensation cases is limited to genuine errors of law, not disagreement on facts.

C. Manjamma & Anr. vs The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware