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.

Banking & Debt Recovery LawSupreme Court of India

M/S. Pro Knits vs. The Board of Directors of Canara Bank & Ors.

Not available · 2024 INSC 565Decided 1 Aug 2024
Not available
Justice Bela M. Trivedi · Justice R. Mahadevan

Background

A batch of appellants who claimed to be registered Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) had their loan accounts classified as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) by various banks/NBFCs, which then proceeded to enforce security interests under the SARFAESI Act. The appellants argued the banks should first have followed a 2015 Government of India "Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of MSMEs" notification meant to help stressed MSMEs before declaring their loans NPA. The Bombay High Court had dismissed their writ petitions, holding banks were not bound to apply this framework on their own.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the 2015 Framework, issued under Section 9 of the MSMED Act and reinforced by RBI directions under the Banking Regulation Act, has statutory force and is mandatory: banks must identify "incipient stress" in an MSME's account and offer it a chance at revival before classifying it as NPA. The High Court's view that this was merely optional was held to be erroneous and was set aside. However, since the SARFAESI proceedings in these particular cases had already concluded and possession of the properties had already been taken, the Court did not send the cases back for retrial, but left it open to the appellants to pursue other available legal remedies.

Lesson Learnt

MSME borrowers are entitled to a structured revival process before their loan is declared NPA, but they must proactively and promptly furnish authenticated proof of their MSME registration to the bank, raising this claim belatedly, after enforcement action is already complete, will not help.

M/S. Pro Knits vs. The Board of Directors of Canara Bank & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware