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.

Contempt of CourtSupreme Court of India

Dinesh Kumar Singh v. R.K. Mahajan

Civil Appeal · 2025 INSC 58Decided 8 Jan 2025
Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 379-380 of 2019 (in Civil Appeal Nos. 2788-2789 of 2017)
Justice J.K. Maheshwari · Justice Rajesh Bindal

Background

The petitioners, who had been appointed as Peons in R.K. Dwarka College under Magadh University, claimed their absorption into regular service had been directed by a one-man commission (the "J. Sinha Commission") set up to resolve pay and absorption disputes for Magadh University staff, and that this had been confirmed by the Supreme Court's 2017 order in a related case. They filed a contempt petition alleging that the University and State authorities had failed to comply with that order and absorb them.

Decision Breakdown

The Court examined the actual text of the Commission's orders and found no positive direction requiring the petitioners' absorption: the Commission had only directed the University to fill vacant posts from qualified persons in order of seniority, not to absorb these specific petitioners. The State of Bihar's counter-affidavit showed the University's recommendations for absorption did not follow the Commission's prescribed method, and the State had asked for compliant recommendations that were never furnished. Since there was no clear, disobeyed direction, the Court held there was no wilful non-compliance and dismissed the contempt petitions, while leaving the petitioners free to pursue other legal remedies.

Lesson Learnt

A contempt petition can only succeed if there was a clear, specific direction that was deliberately disobeyed. Courts will not treat an ambiguous or general direction (here, "fill vacancies by seniority") as if it guaranteed a personal entitlement to particular individuals.

Dinesh Kumar Singh v. R.K. Mahajan – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware