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

IJM Corporation Berhad v. M/s Lakshmi Sai Constructions Company

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 777Decided 28 Jul 2026
Civil Appeal No. 9775 of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 647 of 2023), Diary No. 41624/2022
Justice J.B. Pardiwala · Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Background

When the defendant filed its written statement in the underlying suit, it mentioned a counter-claim but, lacking funds to pay the required court fee, asked the trial court to take only the written statement on record, meaning the counter-claim itself was never formally registered. Roughly four years later, after the plaintiff's evidence had already closed, the defendant applied to pay the court fee and have the counter-claim taken on record; the trial court allowed this, and the High Court affirmed. The appellant-plaintiff challenged this, arguing it was unfair to revive a counter-claim so late in the proceedings.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that since no counter-claim had ever actually been placed on record (only the written statement was accepted), there was nothing existing that could later be "cured" by simply paying a fee: the proper course would have been an application to amend the written statement to formally raise the counter-claim, incorporating it as new pleading. But by the time the fee-payment application was made, the trial had already concluded, and Order VI Rule 17 CPC bars amendments introducing new claims after trial has commenced unless the party shows it could not have raised the matter earlier despite due diligence, which the defendant never pleaded or proved (financial incapacity alone was not sufficient and was not proved either). The Court found no reason to sustain the High Court's order and allowed the appeal, directing that the suit proceed without the counter-claim.

Lesson Learnt

A litigant who cannot afford court fees on a counter-claim at the time of filing should promptly seek the court's permission to defer payment or formally amend pleadings, waiting years, until after the trial's evidence has closed, to revive an unregistered counter-claim will not be allowed.

IJM Corporation Berhad v. M/s Lakshmi Sai Constructions Company – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware