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

Dr. Yugeshwar Yadav v. Sanjay Kumar

Civil Appeal · 2025 INSC 61Decided 8 Jan 2025
Contempt Petition (C) [@Diary No. 7955 of 2022] (in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018, in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017)
Justice J.K. Maheshwari · Justice Rajesh Bindal

Background

The petitioner, a lecturer, had his absorption into regular service allowed by the "J. Sinha Commission" and confirmed by the Supreme Court's 2017 order; Magadh University formally absorbed him in 2018. He alleged that his salary arrears and pension had still not been finalised, amounting to disobedience of the Court's earlier orders.

Decision Breakdown

The State of Bihar's counter-affidavit showed that ascertainable arrears had been paid, but an enquiry committee (set up in a related contempt case) had found the petitioner had not worked for certain periods, meaning some amount was actually recoverable from him rather than owed to him, and his pension had been put on hold pending that enquiry. Because these were genuine factual disputes requiring verification rather than clear-cut defiance, the Court found no wilful non-compliance, but directed the University's Registrar/Vice-Chancellor to conduct a proper fact-finding enquiry into the salary, arrears, and pension issues within fixed timelines, with liberty to approach the High Court if either side remained dissatisfied.

Lesson Learnt

Where the record shows genuinely disputed facts about how much service was actually rendered, a court will resolve that dispute through a proper fact-finding enquiry rather than by a contempt finding: contempt is reserved for clear, deliberate disobedience of an unambiguous order.

Dr. Yugeshwar Yadav v. Sanjay Kumar – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware