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

K. Samba Moorthy v. Sanjiv Chadha and Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2025 INSC 110Decided 27 Jan 2025
Civil Appeal (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10245 of 2024)
Justice B.R. Gavai · Justice K.V. Viswanathan

Background

The appellant, a Bank of Baroda officer, was hit with a minor penalty (a pay cut) in 2001 after disciplinary proceedings, and his pending promotion result to Manager Scale-III was kept in abeyance and eventually cancelled. In 2017, the High Court found the departmental enquiry biased, the enquiry officer was actually a junior colleague competing with him for the same promotion, and quashed the penalty, ordering "all consequential benefits." The Bank, however, only refunded the reduced salary and never restored the promotion; when the appellant sought contempt action, the High Court's Division Bench held there was no contempt since no court had specifically ordered his promotion.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that "consequential benefits" flowing from quashing a tainted disciplinary penalty must genuinely restore what was lost because of that very penalty, including a promotion that had been kept in abeyance and then cancelled solely because of the enquiry that was later found to be biased. Paying back a token sum of about Rs. 19,446 could not be treated as real compliance. The Court ordered the Bank to grant the appellant promotion to Scale-III retrospectively from 28 July 2001, with all monetary benefits plus 6% annual interest, while leaving a separate, later promotion dispute open for him to pursue if he wishes.

Lesson Learnt

When a court quashes a wrongful disciplinary action and grants "consequential benefits," an employer cannot get away with token compliance: the benefits must actually undo the real, practical harm the wrongful action caused, including lost promotions.

K. Samba Moorthy v. Sanjiv Chadha and Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware