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.

Civil ProcedureSupreme Court of India

M/s. Marg Limited v. Sushil Lalwani and Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 402Decided 21 Apr 2026
C.A. No.-004655-004655 - 2026
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Justice Alok Aradhe

Background

The appellant, a real estate developer, had mortgaged a commercial property in Chennai to a bank to secure loans, and after defaulting, negotiated a settlement in which the respondents agreed to pay off the bank and purchase the property through a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) and eight registered sale deeds. The appellant later sued the respondents for mandatory injunction to enforce the MoA and recover an alleged balance of about Rs. 53 crores, claiming the respondents had not fulfilled all their obligations. The trial court refused to reject the plaint at the threshold, but the Madras High Court, in revision, allowed the respondents' challenge and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, citing undervaluation of the suit and lack of a valid cause of action.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the plaint disclosed a complete and intelligible cause of action based on the MoA, its partial implementation through sale deeds, and the alleged breach of reciprocal obligations, so it was not liable to be rejected as disclosing no cause of action. On the valuation issue, the Court held that Order VII Rule 11(b) and (c) CPC require a two-step process: the court must first form an opinion that the valuation or court fee is deficient, and must then give the plaintiff an opportunity to correct it within a fixed time: rejection can follow only if the plaintiff fails to comply. Since the High Court merely concluded the suit was undervalued without determining proper valuation and without granting any opportunity to cure the defect, its order was legally unsustainable. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's rejection of the plaint and directed the trial court to give the appellant an opportunity to correct the valuation and pay the requisite court fee.

Lesson Learnt

A civil suit cannot be thrown out at the threshold merely because of an undervalued claim or insufficient court fee. The law requires the court to first specify the correct valuation and give the plaintiff a chance to fix the deficiency; only a failure to comply with that opportunity can justify rejecting the plaint.

M/s. Marg Limited v. Sushil Lalwani and Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware