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.

Arbitration & Commercial LawSupreme Court of India

Krishna Devi @ Sabitri Devi (Rani) v. Union of India

Civil Appeal · 2025 INSC 24Decided 3 Jan 2025
Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 10621/2024)
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Justice Sandeep Mehta

Background

The appellant's husband, a contractor, had won an arbitration award against the Union of India in 2022 for unpaid dues on a construction project, but died during the proceedings, leaving her to pursue the claim as his legal heir. A dispute arose over when the 30-day clock for challenging the award actually started ticking: the government said it began only when it received a formal court notice on 18 November 2022, while the appellant argued it began earlier, on 21 September 2022, when a court order made clear the award existed and was available once arbitrator fees were paid. Both the trial court and the High Court sided with the government and dismissed her application as premature.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the law only requires a party to become aware that an award has been filed. It does not insist on a specific formal notice, and even oral or indirect communication can suffice, relying on a series of its own precedents. Since the government was clearly informed on 21 September 2022 that the award existed and was accessible pending payment of fees, that was the trigger date, not the later formal notice of 18 November 2022. On that basis, the limitation period had already expired by the time the appellant filed her application on 10 November 2022, meaning it was not premature at all, and the lower courts had erred.

Lesson Learnt

In arbitration and similar legal proceedings, "notice" of a decision does not have to come through a formal, official letter. If you are otherwise made clearly aware that a ruling exists and is available, the legal clock starts running from that point, so parties should not sit on their hands waiting for a technical formality.

Krishna Devi @ Sabitri Devi (Rani) v. Union of India – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware