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.

Family LawSupreme Court of India

In Re: Perry Kansagra

Contempt Petition (Civil)Decided 11 Jul 2022
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2021
Uday Umesh Lalit · Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Background

In an earlier custody battle between Perry Kansagra ("Perry") and Smriti Madan Kansagra ("Smriti") over their son Aditya, the Supreme Court in 2020 gave Perry custody on the strength of his undertakings that he would submit to Indian courts' jurisdiction and would obtain a "Mirror Order" from a Kenyan court reflecting the Indian order. It later emerged that the Kenyan High Court had in fact refused to register/recognise the Indian judgment (an order Perry never disclosed to the Supreme Court), and that Perry took the child to Kenya and then defied several follow-up directions of the Supreme Court, including ignoring notices and severing contact with Smriti. In October 2021 a three-judge bench recalled the original custody judgment as having been obtained by fraud and initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Perry.

Decision Breakdown

Despite being duly served (including through the Ministry of Law, e-mail, and steps to secure his presence via CBI Look Out and Red/Yellow Corner Notices), Perry neither responded to the contempt notice nor appeared, though his advocate was present but chose not to argue on his behalf. The Court held that making false statements/undertakings to deceive a court and then reneging on them interferes with the administration of justice and squarely amounts to contempt, relying on precedents like Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma and K.D. Sharma v. SAIL. On this record, the Court found Perry guilty of criminal contempt for violating his solemn undertakings and for obstructing justice. However, rather than immediately sentencing him, the Court gave him one final opportunity to appear in person with the child on the next date and be heard on the question of punishment, noting that purging the contempt could still lead to a sympathetic view.

Lesson Learnt

Undertakings given to a court are treated as solemn commitments, and courts can and will recall their own final orders and hold a litigant in criminal contempt if those undertakings are later shown to have been given falsely or violated, fighting a custody or civil case with less than full candour toward the court carries serious independent legal risk of its own.