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.

Arbitration & Commercial LawSupreme Court of India

Dushyant Janbandhu vs M/S Hyundai AutoEver India Pvt. Ltd.

Not available · 2024 INSC 966Decided 11 Dec 2024
Not available
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Justice Sandeep Mehta

Background

During the Covid-19 pandemic, an Assistant Manager at Hyundai AutoEver India was directed to resume office attendance, refused, and was issued a show-cause notice, an inquiry, a charge memo, and ultimately terminated in January 2021, all without any allegation that he had breached his employment contract's confidentiality clause. When his wages went unpaid, he sought relief before the statutory Payment of Wages authority and later challenged his termination before the Industrial Tribunal. In response, the employer unilaterally appointed an arbitrator and, when that arbitrator himself closed the proceedings citing the Supreme Court's Perkins Eastman ruling on biased appointments, the employer approached the Madras High Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act to get a court-appointed arbitrator, for the first time also alleging a breach of the confidentiality clause.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court allowed the employee's appeal and set aside the High Court's order appointing an arbitrator, dismissing the employer's Section 11(6) petition with costs of Rs. 5 lakh. It held that the confidentiality-clause allegation was a fabricated afterthought never mentioned in the show-cause notice, inquiry report, charge memo, or termination order, so no real dispute existed on that count. On the genuine disputes, non-payment of wages and validity of termination, the Court held these fell exclusively within the statutory jurisdiction of the Payment of Wages Act authority and the Industrial Tribunal respectively (per Section 22 of the PW Act and settled law on non-arbitrability, applying the four-fold test from Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation), and were therefore not arbitrable at all. The Court found the arbitration petition was essentially retaliatory, filed to intimidate the employee for using statutory remedies.

Lesson Learnt

Disputes over unpaid wages and wrongful termination that fall under specific labour statutes (like the Payment of Wages Act and Industrial Disputes Act) cannot be forced into private arbitration merely because an employment contract contains an arbitration clause, and courts will penalize attempts to misuse arbitration proceedings to pressure an employee who has gone to the proper statutory forum.

Dushyant Janbandhu vs M/S Hyundai AutoEver India Pvt. Ltd. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware