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.

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

K. Hymavathi vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Criminal Appeal · 2023 INSC 811Decided 6 Sept 2023
Criminal Appeal No. 2743 of 2023
A.S. Bopanna · Prashant Kumar Mishra

Background

The appellant had lent Rs. 20 lakh to the accused in 2012 against a promissory note, under which he promised to repay the full amount with interest by December 2016. When the accused issued a cheque in 2017 towards partial repayment and it bounced for insufficient funds, the appellant filed criminal complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed these complaints, reasoning that since the cheques were issued more than three years after the 2012 promissory note, the underlying debt was already time-barred and therefore not a "legally enforceable debt."

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had miscalculated the limitation period, since the promissory note fixed repayment by December 2016, the three-year limitation period for recovering that debt only began running from December 2016, not from the 2012 date of the note itself. As the cheques were issued in 2017, well within this limitation window, the debt was still legally enforceable, and the complaints were filed on time too. The Court also reaffirmed that in any case, a cheque itself amounts to a fresh written promise to pay under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act, and whether a debt is genuinely time-barred is a mixed question of fact and law better decided through trial evidence, not summarily quashed under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court's quashing order was set aside and the complaints restored for trial, to be completed within six months.

Lesson Learnt

For a loan repayable on a fixed future date, the limitation clock starts running from that due date, not from the date the loan was originally taken, so a cheque issued well after the loan but before the repayment deadline expires can still be prosecuted as being for a legally enforceable debt.

K. Hymavathi vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware