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.

Education LawSupreme Court of India

Dr. Shyam Narayan Singh v. Sanjay Kumar

Civil Appeal · 2025 INSC 66Decided 8 Jan 2025
CONMT.PET.(C) No.-000449 - 2021 (in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018, in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017)
Justice J.K. Maheshwari · Justice Rajesh Bindal

Background

The petitioners were teachers at colleges affiliated with Magadh University in Bihar whose absorption into regular university service, and consequent claims for salary and pension, had been approved years earlier by a one-man judicial commission and confirmed by the Supreme Court, subject to each teacher proving continuous actual work since appointment. Some teachers had received their regular current salary but not their pension or other dues, allegedly because of later court orders in a separate but related contempt case that put certain payments on hold pending verification of who had actually worked. The petitioners filed this contempt petition arguing the withholding of dues violated the Court's earlier orders.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found that the underlying factual question, whether each individual teacher had genuinely worked continuously as claimed, required a proper fact-finding inquiry that a contempt proceeding was not the right forum to conduct, so it declined to hold anyone in contempt. The Court clarified that its earlier holding orders had never actually addressed pension specifically, and that pension had been withheld by conflating it with concerns about salaries paid for periods not actually worked. It disposed of the petition by directing each teacher to submit their claim with supporting documents to the University's Registrar/Vice Chancellor, who must conduct a fair inquiry and issue a reasoned decision on salary and pension within set timeframes, with any dissatisfied party free to approach the High Court afterward.

Lesson Learnt

A contempt petition is not a substitute for resolving genuine factual disputes (like whether an employee actually worked during a disputed period): such disputes need a proper fact-finding inquiry by the appropriate authority, even if that means further delay for employees awaiting their dues.

Dr. Shyam Narayan Singh v. Sanjay Kumar – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware