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

Hemantha Kumar vs. R. Mahadevaiah

Civil AppealDecided 11 Jul 2022
Civil Appeal No. 4108 of 2022
M.R. Shah · B.V. Nagarathna

Background

The appellant (a buyer) had sued for specific performance of an agreement to sell property against two defendants. All parties jointly applied to the trial court for a consent decree recording their compromise, but instead of passing the decree itself, the trial court referred the matter to the Lok Adalat, which was presided over by the same judge and which then passed the consent decree. Years later, the defendants challenged that consent decree in the Karnataka High Court, alleging it had been obtained by fraud, and the High Court set it aside, observing that the plaintiff's counsel appeared to have "misled" the trial court. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that merely referring a matter to a Lok Adalat instead of passing the consent decree directly is not, by itself, a ground to doubt the genuineness of the resulting decree, especially where the same judge presided over both. It found no material basis for the High Court's "prima facie" finding that the plaintiff's counsel had misled the court, particularly since the defendants' own advocates had signed the same compromise application and never objected to it, and the defendants did not dispute having received the balance sale consideration. The Court held the High Court had committed a serious error, both on facts and in law, in setting aside the consent decree without any real evidence of fraud. It quashed the High Court's order and restored the consent decree.

Lesson Learnt

A consent decree passed through a Lok Adalat carries the same legal weight as one passed directly by a court, and it cannot be set aside on vague suspicion of fraud: a party alleging fraud must show clear evidence, not just point to the procedural path (like a Lok Adalat reference) the case took.

Hemantha Kumar vs. R. Mahadevaiah – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware