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 ProcedureSupreme Court of India

M/S Garment Craft vs Prakash Chand Goel

Not availableDecided 11 Jan 2022
Not available
Sanjiv Khanna · Bela M. Trivedi

Background

Prakash Chand Goel had sued M/s Garment Craft (a sole proprietorship of Shailendra Garg) in the Delhi courts to recover about Rs.81 lakh. After the plaintiff's evidence concluded, Shailendra Garg was arrested in an unrelated case in Rajasthan and remained in judicial custody for over a year and a half, during which the appellant's defence evidence was closed for non-appearance, and eventually an ex-parte decree was passed against the appellant. The trial court later set aside that ex-parte decree, accepting that Garg's incarceration had genuinely prevented him from contesting the suit, but the Delhi High Court, exercising its supervisory powers under Article 227, reversed that and restored the ex-parte decree.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the trial court's decision to set aside the ex-parte decree was a well-reasoned finding based on a holistic appreciation of the facts, genuine incarceration of the sole proprietor was a valid "sufficient cause" preventing him from participating in the trial, and this did not call for interference by the High Court under its limited supervisory (not appellate) jurisdiction under Article 227. The Court restored the trial court's order setting aside the ex-parte decree and remitted the matter for the appellant to lead defence evidence, while also directing the appellant to disclose his assets to protect against any attempt to dissipate them, since the earlier decree's enforcement (including a property auction) was rendered void by this order.

Lesson Learnt

A High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is not meant to be used as an ordinary appeal to reassess factual findings. Where a trial court's decision (such as setting aside an ex-parte decree for genuine sufficient cause like incarceration) is reasoned and supported by the record, the High Court should not substitute its own view for it.

M/S Garment Craft vs Prakash Chand Goel – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware