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

Evergreen Land Mark Pvt. Ltd. vs John Tinson & Company Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Civil AppealDecided 19 Apr 2022
Civil Appeal No. 2783 of 2022
M.R. Shah · B.V. Nagarathna

Background

The appellant ran a restaurant and bar on two leased premises. When the lease was terminated, a dispute went to arbitration, and the landlords sought an interim order under Section 17 directing the tenant to deposit unpaid rent for March 2020 to December 2021 (the Covid-19 period). The tenant argued that the pandemic lockdown triggered the "force majeure" clause (clause 29) in the lease, excusing it from paying rent for the closure periods, but the Arbitral Tribunal ordered 100% of the rent deposited without ruling on that defence, and the Delhi High Court upheld this.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that since the Arbitral Tribunal itself had expressly declined to give even a prima facie view on whether the force majeure clause applied, it could not simultaneously order deposit of 100% of the rent covering the very periods where that clause was in dispute. The Court modified the order: the tenant must deposit the full rent for all periods except the specific spells of complete lockdown closure (22.03.2020-09.09.2020 and 19.04.2021-28.06.2021), leaving the force majeure question for those periods to be decided by the Tribunal on its own merits at final adjudication. The appeal was thus partly allowed, with the Tribunal directed to conclude arbitration within about nine months.

Lesson Learnt

An interim deposit order in arbitration should not effectively pre-decide a genuinely disputed contractual defence (like force majeure) that the tribunal has itself said it isn't yet ready to rule on: interim relief must leave the real dispute open for final decision.

Evergreen Land Mark Pvt. Ltd. vs John Tinson & Company Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware