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.

Contempt of CourtSupreme Court of India

Jai Krishna Prasad Yadav & Ors. v. Deepak Kumar & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2025 INSC 67Decided 8 Jan 2025
Contempt Petition (Civil) [Diary No. 1408/2021] and connected contempt petitions in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017
Justice J.K. Maheshwari · Justice Rajesh Bindal

Background

This judgment disposed of a batch of contempt petitions filed by several individuals (including Jai Krishna Prasad Yadav, Mahendra Prasad Yadav, and others) who claimed they were not receiving salary arrears and pension despite being absorbed into government service following recommendations of the "J. Sinha Commission" (a one-man commission set up to address irregular college staff appointments in Bihar/Jharkhand). This commission's recommendations had earlier been approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Nand Yadav v. Magadh University. The petitioners alleged that the authorities' failure to pay arrears amounted to contempt of that earlier order.

Decision Breakdown

The Court found that the petitioners were not parties to the original Krishna Nand Yadav case, and no specific direction had been issued in their favour personally regarding salary and arrears, so no contempt was made out. The dispute over whether the employees had actually worked during the relevant period (a factual question) required a proper fact-finding inquiry, which the Court held could not be undertaken in contempt proceedings. Relying on an earlier Supreme Court ruling (State of Bihar v. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K.M.), the Court declined to find contempt but instead directed each petitioner to submit their claims with supporting documents to the university's Registrar/Vice-Chancellor, who must hold an inquiry and pass a reasoned order on salary arrears and pension within set timelines, with a right to approach the High Court if dissatisfied.

Lesson Learnt

Contempt of court proceedings are not a substitute for a full fact-finding inquiry. Where entitlement to a benefit (like salary or pension) depends on disputed facts, the correct route is an administrative inquiry by the competent authority, not a contempt petition against government officials.

Jai Krishna Prasad Yadav & Ors. v. Deepak Kumar & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware