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 LawDelhi High Court

Manju Gandhi & Anr. vs. M/S Tata Capital Limited & Anr.

Original Miscellaneous Petition (Termination) · 2026:DHC:8435Decided 28 Sept 2026New Delhi Bench
O.M.P.(T) 4/2026CNR: DLHC010335532026
Justice Om Prakash Shukla

Background

The petitioners filed a petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking termination of the mandate of the sole arbitrator appointed in their dispute with Tata Capital Limited. On perusal of the pleadings, the amount in dispute was found to be less than Rs. 2 crores.

Decision Breakdown

Relying on the precedent National Highways Authority of India v. Third Rock Consultants Pvt. Ltd., the Court held that it lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the petition since the disputed amount fell below the High Court's jurisdictional threshold. Counsel for the petitioners sought leave to withdraw with liberty to approach the appropriate forum, which the Court granted, and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

Lesson Learnt

Before filing any arbitration-related petition in the High Court, check the pecuniary value of the dispute against the Court's jurisdictional threshold: petitions below that threshold will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction rather than decided on merits, even though the litigant retains the right to refile before the correct forum.

Manju Gandhi & Anr. vs. M/S Tata Capital Limited & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware