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

Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Saryu Plastics Pvt. Ltd.

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 552Decided 26 May 2026
C.A. No.-000769-000770 - 2026
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Justice Alok Aradhe

Background

A government water supply board had awarded PVC pipe supply contracts to a small-scale manufacturer between 1998-2002, but later blacklisted the company after an audit found alleged excess payments. Years later the dispute went to arbitration, and the Arbitrator awarded the company roughly Rs.1.01 crore with simple interest for the period the case was pending. The company then asked the Arbitrator, and later the Commercial Court, to change "simple interest" to "compound interest" in the award, and the Commercial Court, while exercising what it called review jurisdiction, actually granted that change.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act only allows correction of computational, clerical, or typographical errors in an award. It is not a tool to revisit or change the Arbitrator's substantive findings. Since the Arbitrator had consciously and deliberately chosen to award simple interest (not compound), converting that to compound interest was a substantive change to the merits of the award, not a correction of any slip or arithmetical mistake, and therefore fell entirely outside what Section 33 permits. The Commercial Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by making this substitution, so the Supreme Court set aside both the Commercial Court's order and the High Court judgment that upheld it, restoring the Arbitrator's original award of simple interest at 21.675% for the relevant period.

Lesson Learnt

A court or tribunal's limited power to "correct" an arbitral award covers only clerical, typographical or arithmetical slips. It cannot be used, however framed, to change a deliberate substantive decision like the type or rate of interest awarded; that requires a proper challenge to the award itself, not a correction application.

Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Saryu Plastics Pvt. Ltd. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware