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

M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. vs General Manager & Anr.

Not available · 2024 INSC 889Decided 22 Nov 2024
Not available
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Justice Sandeep Mehta

Background

After a works contract dispute went to arbitration, the arbitral tribunal's 12-month statutory deadline (extendable by 6 months by consent) to issue its award was approaching expiry. The appellant applied to the High Court under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for a further extension of time, citing delays partly caused by the COVID-19 pandemic period, but the High Court declined to grant the extension.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the text of Section 29A clearly gives courts the power and jurisdiction to extend an arbitral tribunal's time to make an award where there is "sufficient cause." It explained that "sufficient cause" should be interpreted in light of the underlying purpose of arbitration, effective and efficient dispute resolution, rather than narrowly, and noted the Court's own prior order excluding the pandemic period from limitation calculations was relevant here. Finding sufficient cause given the pandemic-related delay and the parties' own agreement to seek an extension, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and extended the time for the tribunal to deliver its award until 31 December 2024.

Lesson Learnt

Courts have real discretion under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act to extend the time limit for an arbitral award when genuine cause, such as pandemic-related delay, is shown, since the law prioritises actually resolving the dispute over rigid procedural deadlines.

M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. vs General Manager & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware