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

Debasish Paul & Anr. vs. Amal Boral

Civil Appeal · 2023 INSC 925Decided 18 Oct 2023
Civil Appeal No. 6565 of 2023
Sanjay Kishan Kaul · Sudhanshu Dhulia

Background

A tenant in Kolkata stopped paying rent of Rs. 352/month from February 2005, prompting the landlords to serve an eviction notice in 2013 and file an eviction suit. The tenant applied under Sections 7(1) and (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, a provision requiring tenants to promptly deposit disputed/arrear rent to avoid eviction, but filed it ten months late, without any application to condone the delay, and the Trial Court rejected it. The High Court, however, set aside that rejection and gave the tenant another chance to explain the delay by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, prompting the landlords' appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that while the general Limitation Act can apply to tenancy proceedings, Section 7 of the West Bengal Tenancy Act itself contains a specific proviso capping any extension of time at two months beyond the statutory period, and this special, stricter limit overrides the general law. The tenant had neither paid rent, deposited it with his Section 7 application, nor sought extension within that two-month cap; his excuse of having received poor legal advice from his lawyer was rejected as insufficient, since accepting it would let any tenant occupy premises rent-free by blaming counsel. Finding arrears of over Rs. 78,000 accumulated over many years, the Court set aside the High Court's order, restored the Trial Court's rejection, and allowed the landlords' appeal with costs.

Lesson Learnt

Tenant-protection laws that require depositing arrears of rent to avoid eviction usually come with strict, capped deadlines that override the ordinary, more flexible Limitation Act: a tenant who misses these specific statutory deadlines, even due to a lawyer's bad advice, cannot expect the court to bail them out.

Debasish Paul & Anr. vs. Amal Boral – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware