LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

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 Property & InheritanceSupreme Court of India

Mohd. Shariq vs. Punjab National Bank and Others

SLP(C) · 2023 INSC 355Decided 11 Apr 2023
SLP(C) No. 17470 of 2019
Ajay Rastogi · Bela M. Trivedi

Background

The appellant was the highest bidder (Rs. 2.01 crore) in a bank auction of a defaulting borrower's mortgaged property under the SARFAESI Act, and had deposited earnest money plus 25% of the bid amount. Unknown to him, the Debt Recovery Tribunal had passed an interim order the same day keeping confirmation of the sale in abeyance; he was never informed of this pending litigation. When the bank later demanded the balance and threatened forfeiture, he offered to pay once the DRT proceedings were resolved, but the bank instead forfeited his deposit and re-auctioned the property to someone else at a lower price. He challenged this in the High Court; the Single Judge ruled in his favour and ordered the sale deed executed in his favour, but the Division Bench reversed this (while leaving the earlier auction's outcome undisturbed) and told him to separately pursue a claim for the forfeited amount.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the appellant had acted in good faith throughout, depositing further large sums when asked by the High Court to prove his bona fides, and was never told about the pending DRT proceedings that would have let him reconsider participating in the auction. Since the underlying facts (that Rs. 50.25 lakh had been deposited by the appellant pursuant to the original auction) were undisputed by either side, the Court held there was no justification for relegating him to a separate, fresh legal proceeding to recover the forfeited amount: the Division Bench had erred in leaving this issue unresolved when it could and should have decided it. The Bank was directed to refund the Rs. 50.25 lakh within two months, failing which it would carry 12% annual interest; however, since the appellant himself had filed the appeal after a long delay (which was condoned), he was not entitled to interest for the period before that.

Lesson Learnt

A bidder who is kept in the dark about litigation affecting a public auction cannot fairly be blamed for the auction's later cancellation, and courts should resolve genuinely undisputed money claims directly rather than sending a person through fresh rounds of litigation to get back what is indisputably owed to them.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)
Mohd. Shariq vs. Punjab National Bank and Others – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware