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.

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Dhirendra Kumar v. Deepak Kumar

Civil Appeal · 2025 INSC 60Decided 8 Jan 2025
Contempt Petition (C) [@Diary No. 20329 of 2020] in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017 (with connected contempt petitions)
Justice J.K. Maheshwari · Justice Rajesh Bindal

Background

A batch of contempt petitions was filed by several university lecturers in Bihar (the lead petitioner being Dhirendra Kumar) who claimed the State and universities had not complied with a 2017 Supreme Court order approving their absorption as regular staff based on a one-man commission's recommendation. Although their absorption had eventually been formalized, the petitioners said they still had not been paid the salary arrears and pension they were owed, because of doubts about whether they had actually worked during certain periods.

Decision Breakdown

The Court found that the petitioners were not originally parties to the earlier 2017 case they claimed was being violated, and that no specific order had actually directed payment to them by name, so a contempt case (which requires disobedience of a clear, specific court direction) was not the right vehicle to resolve this dispute. Instead of dismissing the petitioners' grievance outright, the Court disposed of the contempt petitions with fresh directions: each petitioner must submit their claim with supporting documents to the university's Registrar/Vice-Chancellor, who must hold a proper inquiry and pass a reasoned decision on salary and pension within set timeframes, with a right to approach the High Court if still dissatisfied.

Lesson Learnt

Contempt of court is a serious and narrow remedy reserved for willful disobedience of a specific, clear court order. It cannot be used to litigate a fresh dispute over facts (like whether someone actually worked on certain days) that requires its own inquiry; the proper route is often to seek a structured administrative decision instead.

Dhirendra Kumar v. Deepak Kumar – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware