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

M/S Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Limited (ACIL) vs. Airports Authority of India (AAI)

First Appeal from Order (Original Side, Commercial) · 2026:DHC:8252-DBDecided 25 Sept 2026New Delhi Bench
FAO(OS) (COMM) 246/2026CNR: DLHC010430852026
Justice Anil Kshetarpal · Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav

Background

ACIL had won a favourable arbitral award against AAI over a construction contract dispute dating back to 2009, but a Single Judge set the award aside, not on the substance of the dispute, but because AAI had unilaterally appointed the Sole Arbitrator, which is barred under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act unless the parties expressly waive it in writing. Notably, AAI itself had appointed the arbitrator, participated in the four-year arbitration without objection, and only raised the appointment issue after losing.

Decision Breakdown

The Division Bench held that Supreme Court precedent (Bhadra International and Bharat Broadband) makes clear that mere participation in arbitration proceedings, even by the very party that made the appointment, can never substitute for the "express agreement in writing" required to waive the bar on unilateral arbitrator appointments. It rejected ACIL's argument that this rule should only protect a party that did not make the appointment, noting Supreme Court precedent has already rejected that exact distinction. Since no such written waiver existed and the appointment was found to violate the statutory ineligibility rule, the appeal was dismissed and the setting-aside of the award upheld.

Lesson Learnt

Even the party that unilaterally appointed an arbitrator can later challenge that very appointment if it turns out to be legally defective: merely participating in the arbitration without objecting does not, by itself, cure the defect; only an explicit written agreement to waive it can.

M/S Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Limited (ACIL) vs. Airports Authority of India (AAI) – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware