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.

Civil ProcedureSupreme Court of India

G. Sita Ram Chander v. Tummala Suresh Chandra Chatterjee

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 906Decided 5 Aug 2026
Civil Appeal Nos. 10204-10214 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 9910-20 of 2025)
Justice J. B. Pardiwala · Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Background

The respondents' earlier appeals had been dismissed, after which they filed review petitions against that dismissal. A Single Judge heard the review petitions and allowed them, and on the very same day also passed a common judgment allowing the original appeals themselves without any further hearing. G. Sita Ram Chander challenged both the order allowing the review and the consequential judgment allowing the appeals.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found that what the Single Judge did in the "review" was, in substance, a full rehearing of the appeal on its merits: the review order itself acknowledged that the earlier judgment had failed to consider contentions with a substantial bearing on the result, which is not a permissible ground for review but a ground for appeal. This went well beyond the limited contours of review jurisdiction. The Court set aside both the order allowing the review petitions and the dependent judgment that subsequently allowed the appeals, since the latter rested entirely on the former. The Court granted the aggrieved respondents liberty to challenge the original order (the one that had dismissed their appeals) afresh within 60 days, while clarifying it expressed no opinion on the merits.

Lesson Learnt

A review petition cannot be used as a backdoor appeal: a court exercising review jurisdiction may only correct an error apparent on the face of the record, not re-argue and reverse a decision on merits; that requires an actual appeal, filed through the proper channel.

G. Sita Ram Chander v. Tummala Suresh Chandra Chatterjee – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware