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

Manish v. State of Maharashtra

Criminal Appeal · 2025 INSC 430Decided 2 Apr 2025
Crl.A. No.-001742-001742 - 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10931 of 2022)
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Justice Joymalya Bagchi

Background

Between 2015 and 2017, the appellant purchased coal on credit from the complainant, a coal supplier, but fell into arrears of over Rs. 76 lakh. After negotiations, a notarized agreement was signed in 2020 under which the appellant promised to repay Rs. 80 lakh in installments; he paid only Rs. 5 lakh before defaulting again. The complainant then got an FIR registered under Section 420 IPC alleging the appellant had never intended to pay, and the Bombay High Court refused to quash it, holding the notarized agreement showed an admission of dishonest inducement.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that mere breach of a promise to repay does not by itself establish dishonest intention at the inception of a transaction, which is essential to the offence of cheating. Evidence showed the appellant was a genuine businessman with substantial mortgaged properties and had even received a fresh bank loan in 2018, contradicting any claim of concealed insolvency from the start. Since no further supplies were made after the notarized agreement and no fresh property was extracted by deception, the Court found the case was a purely commercial dispute over business losses, not a criminal case of cheating, and quashed the FIR.

Lesson Learnt

A business failure or inability to repay a debt, even after a written promise to pay, does not automatically amount to criminal cheating. The law requires proof of dishonest intention right from the start of the transaction, not just a broken promise made later.

Manish v. State of Maharashtra – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware