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

M/S Maxim India Integrated Circuit Design (P) Ltd v. Andappa (D) By LRs and Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2025 INSC 17Decided 2 Jan 2025
Civil Appeal Nos. 3650-3655 of 2018 (with Civil Appeal No. 3656 of 2018)
Justice C.T. Ravikumar · Justice Sanjay Kumar

Background

A Bengaluru company, Maxim India, bought a plot of land through a chain of purchases that traced back to a tenancy dispute in which a rival claimant, Andappa, had lost his tenancy petition way back in 1981. Decades later, Andappa revived a claim over the same land through a separate tenancy proceeding, and got courts to rule in his favour (including securing condonation of a 1,378-day delay in filing an appeal) all without disclosing that his 1981 claim had already been finally rejected and that further orders had gone against him in the meantime.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found that Andappa had suppressed crucial facts, that his earlier claim had attained finality against him and that subsequent orders based on it existed, while seeking both the huge delay condonation and the appeal itself, and that names and family relationships in official land records had even been altered to obscure the connection between the two sets of proceedings. Applying the well-established principle that a litigant who does not approach the court with clean hands is not entitled to any relief, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgments favouring Andappa and restored the earlier orders that favoured the chain of title leading to Maxim India.

Lesson Learnt

Courts will not reward a litigant who conceals material facts, especially the finality of an earlier defeat, or manipulates records to relitigate an already-settled issue, coming to court with complete honesty is a non-negotiable precondition for getting any relief, including something as basic as a delay condonation.

M/S Maxim India Integrated Circuit Design (P) Ltd v. Andappa (D) By LRs and Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware