LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

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 (2022 INSC)

Contempt Petition (Civil) · 2022 INSC 1161Decided 3 Nov 2022
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2021
Uday Umesh Lalit · Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · P.S. Narasimha

Background

This is the sentencing order following the Supreme Court's earlier judgment dated 11.07.2022 convicting Perry Kansagra of both civil and criminal contempt of court. The background: Kansagra and Smriti (an Indian citizen) married in 2007 and had a son, Aditya, who lived with Smriti in Delhi. After protracted custody litigation, the Supreme Court in October 2020 granted Kansagra custody of Aditya to relocate him to Kenya, but only subject to protective conditions, including obtaining a "mirror order" from a Kenyan court replicating the Indian directions, filing undertakings, depositing Rs. 1 crore, and guaranteeing Smriti's visitation and video-call access. The Court later found Kansagra had never intended to honour these conditions: he made false representations to the Kenyan court that Indian courts had not sought Aditya's consent and that the Supreme Court's decision was unenforceable, and thereafter did not comply with the visitation and access directions. This conduct led to his conviction for contempt, and this judgment decides the punishment.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that Kansagra had deliberately and with clear design given false undertakings and affidavits to the Indian courts merely to secure custody of Aditya, with no genuine intention of complying, and had thereafter misrepresented facts to a foreign court to defeat the Indian court's authority, constituting both civil contempt (willful disobedience of court orders/undertakings) and criminal contempt (interference with the administration of justice and lowering the court's authority). Relying on its inherent constitutional contempt power under Article 129 (which the Court held is not confined by statutory limits in the Contempt of Courts Act), and noting Kansagra showed no remorse, the Court sentenced him to six months' simple imprisonment plus a fine of Rs. 12.5 lakh for civil contempt, and a further six months' simple imprisonment plus a fine of Rs. 12.5 lakh for criminal contempt, with both sentences to run consecutively (i.e., one year total, plus default imprisonment if fines are unpaid). The Ministry of Home Affairs was directed to secure his presence to serve the sentence, and the total fine of Rs. 25 lakh was directed to be paid to Smriti Kansagra.

Lesson Learnt

Giving false assurances and undertakings to an Indian court to obtain a favourable order (and then acting in bad faith to defeat that very order once it is in hand, including by misleading a foreign court) is treated by the Supreme Court as a serious contempt attracting real imprisonment and substantial fines, not a mere technical breach; the Court's contempt power under Article 129 of the Constitution is not limited by the six-month cap or other restrictions found in ordinary contempt legislation.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)
In Re: Perry Kansagra (2022 INSC) – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware