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

Gopal Sharan Singh v. Deepak Kumar

Civil Appeal · 2025 INSC 59Decided 8 Jan 2025
Contempt Petition (C) No. 372 of 2019 (with connected Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 373 and 376 of 2019, in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017)
Justice J.K. Maheshwari · Justice Rajesh Bindal

Background

The petitioners were employees at various colleges under Magadh University whose absorption into regular service had been allowed by the "J. Sinha Commission" (a one-man commission set up by Justice S.B. Sinha, retired) and confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2017, subject to each employee proving continuous work since appointment. The University had since formally absorbed them, but they alleged that the State and University had not paid their pending salary arrears and pension, and filed contempt petitions for this non-payment.

Decision Breakdown

The State of Bihar's counter-affidavit showed that ascertainable arrears had been paid, and that a separate enquiry committee (set up in a related earlier contempt case) had found attendance-record discrepancies for at least one petitioner, meaning the actual working period, and therefore the correct arrears, could not yet be confirmed for all petitioners. Because genuine factual disputes existed about how much each employee had actually worked, the Court held there was no wilful contempt, but rather than leave the matter unresolved, it directed the University's Registrar/Vice-Chancellor to hold a fact-finding enquiry within set timelines, decide the salary and pension claims, and gave the parties liberty to approach the High Court if dissatisfied.

Lesson Learnt

When there is a genuine, unresolved factual dispute (such as disputed attendance records) underlying a claim for compliance with a court order, the Supreme Court will decline to convert that dispute into a contempt finding and will instead direct a proper fact-finding process: contempt requires clear wilful defiance, not an unresolved factual controversy.

Gopal Sharan Singh v. Deepak Kumar – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware