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

Canara Bank vs G.S. Jayarama

Civil AppealDecided 19 May 2022
Civil Appeal No. 3872 of 2022
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud · Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Background

Syndicate Bank (later merged into Canara Bank) had filed an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat at Mangalore against the respondent and his guarantor for recovery of unpaid credit dues. The respondent did not meaningfully participate, and the Permanent Lok Adalat, without conducting any real conciliation, went ahead and passed an award on merits directing repayment. The Karnataka High Court set aside this award, holding that a Permanent Lok Adalat has no adjudicatory function at all, and the Division Bench upheld that view. The Bank appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court clarified the difference between ordinary Lok Adalats (which can only attempt conciliation and have no power to decide a dispute on merits) and Permanent Lok Adalats created under Chapter VI-A of the Act (which do have adjudicatory power under Section 22-C(8), but only after conciliation proceedings under Section 22-C have been attempted and have failed). It held that the High Courts were wrong to say Permanent Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory function at all. They do, once conciliation genuinely fails, even if a party stays absent. However, since the Permanent Lok Adalat in this case never actually attempted or proposed any terms of settlement to the parties before deciding the dispute, the mandatory conciliation step under Section 22-C(7) was skipped. The Court therefore corrected the legal reasoning of the High Court but upheld its final result, the award was rightly set aside, because the Permanent Lok Adalat had jumped straight to adjudication without following the mandatory conciliation procedure.

Lesson Learnt

A Permanent Lok Adalat does have the power to finally decide disputes over public utility services (unlike an ordinary Lok Adalat), but it must first genuinely attempt conciliation and propose settlement terms to both parties, even an absent party, before it can adjudicate the case on merits; skipping that step makes its award invalid.

Canara Bank vs G.S. Jayarama – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware