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

Magic Eye Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s. Green Edge Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2023 INSC 528Decided 12 May 2023
Civil Appeal Nos. 3634-3637 of 2023
M.R. Shah · C.T. Ravikumar

Background

A commercial dispute arose out of a cluster of interlinked business agreements (two shareholders' agreements and two MOUs) between Magic Eye Developers and Green Edge Infrastructure. Green Edge sought arbitration under an arbitration clause found in one of the agreements (SHA-1), while Magic Eye argued that the real dispute concerned a different agreement (MOU-2) that contained no arbitration clause at all. The Delhi High Court, acting under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act to appoint an arbitrator, did not conclusively decide whether a valid arbitration agreement actually existed. It left that question to be sorted out by the arbitrator himself, reasoning the issue was too complex to resolve at the referral stage.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that this was legally incorrect. Under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act, a court exercising pre-referral jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator has a duty to itself conclusively decide whether a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties. It cannot punt that threshold question to the arbitral tribunal, because doing so risks forcing parties into arbitration where no valid agreement to arbitrate exists at all. Since the High Court's order left this issue undecided (it expressly said it "cannot finally pronounce" on the point), the Supreme Court quashed the High Court's order and sent the matter back, directing it to decide within three months, conclusively and on merits, whether a valid arbitration agreement exists, without itself expressing any opinion on that merits question.

Lesson Learnt

Before parties can be pushed into arbitration, a court must first definitively establish that a valid arbitration agreement actually exists between them: this is a threshold gatekeeping job for the court itself, not something that can be deferred to the arbitrator to sort out later.

Magic Eye Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s. Green Edge Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware