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

Ketan Kantilal Seth vs. The State of Gujarat & Ors.

Transfer Petition (Criminal)Decided 9 Sept 2022
Transfer Petition (Criminal) Nos. 333-348 of 2021
J.K. Maheshwari

Background

The petitioner, a director of M/s Home Trade Limited, faced 19 FIRs across Gujarat, Maharashtra, Delhi and West Bengal alleging that he and a co-director fraudulently dealt in and failed to deliver government securities, causing losses to various buyers including a cooperative bank. He sought to have all the pending criminal trials transferred to a single court in Mumbai, since most of the transactions and witnesses were centred there. An unrelated agriculturist, claiming to depend on the affected cooperative bank, applied to intervene in the transfer proceedings.

Decision Breakdown

The Court first dismissed the intervention application, holding that a third party with no direct stake or public-interest ground has no locus to intervene in a transfer petition confined to venue. On the merits, the Court found that the FIRs shared a common core of allegations, a common set of accused, and a heavy concentration of witnesses (236 of 689) in Mumbai, and that a Bombay High Court order had effectively split the trial of one co-accused from the others, causing prejudice. Given the two-decade delay, the multiplicity of proceedings and the risk of unfair trial from fragmented proceedings, the Court allowed the transfer of all 16 pending cases to the Principal Judge, Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court, with directions on record transmission, accused appearance, framing of charges within two months, and completion of trial within two years.

Lesson Learnt

The Supreme Court's power to transfer criminal cases under Section 406 CrPC exists to secure a fair trial and can be used to consolidate multiple FIRs with common facts, accused and witnesses into one court, especially where splitting trials among co-accused has caused unfairness, but a stranger to the case cannot use such proceedings to intervene without a direct or public-interest stake.

Ketan Kantilal Seth vs. The State of Gujarat & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware