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.

Company & Insolvency LawSupreme Court of India

Jord Engineers India Ltd. Through its Signatory vs. Valia and Co. (D) Thr. LRs

Civil AppealDecided 28 Mar 2022
Civil Appeal No. 7281 of 2018
Dinesh Maheshwari · Aniruddha Bose

Background

An operational creditor (Valia and Co.) filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against Jord Engineers India Ltd., alleging default in payment of about Rs. 4.72 crores for goods supplied in 2012. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai admitted the application, but the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) set that order aside on the ground that the demand notice had been served by an advocate with no formal position with the creditor. The creditor then approached the Supreme Court, which remanded the matter back to the NCLAT, but this remand order was passed without notice to Jord Engineers, and subsequent notices sent to Jord Engineers could not be delivered because the company had moved from its address. As a result, the NCLAT decided the remanded matter without Jord Engineers being heard at all.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the NCLAT's fresh order could not be sustained because it was passed without giving Jord Engineers a real opportunity to be heard: the company never received notice of either the Supreme Court's remand order or the revived NCLAT proceedings. The Court set aside the NCLAT's order and restored the appeal for a fresh decision on merits, including consideration of Jord Engineers' plea that a "pre-existing dispute" existed (which would bar the insolvency application). The Court clarified that its earlier stay of Tribunal proceedings would continue until the Appellate Tribunal's fresh decision, without affecting other creditors' independent proceedings, and directed the NCLAT to decide the matter expeditiously.

Lesson Learnt

A party cannot be bound by an adverse order, even one following from an earlier Supreme Court remand, if it was never actually given notice or a fair opportunity to present its case; courts will set aside such orders and send the matter back for a proper hearing.

Jord Engineers India Ltd. Through its Signatory vs. Valia and Co. (D) Thr. LRs – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware