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 S.D. Shinde Tr. Partner vs Govt. of Maharashtra & Ors.

Civil AppealDecided 22 Aug 2023
Civil Appeal Nos. 6107-6108 of 2017
S. Ravindra Bhat · Dipankar Datta

Background

A contractor was awarded a road/canal construction contract by the Maharashtra Irrigation Department in 1983, but disputes over payment for additional and extra work led to arbitration. The arbitrator awarded the contractor over Rs. 1.5 crore plus interest and rejected the State's counter-claim, but the trial court set aside the award for "legal misconduct," holding the claim time-barred and beyond the arbitrator's mandate; the Bombay High Court upheld this. The contractor then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the claim was not time-barred because, per settled law (Inder Singh Rekhi and J.C. Budhraja), limitation in such contract disputes runs from when the final bill is prepared and a genuine dispute (claim followed by denial) arises: here the final bill was issued only in December 1992, so the 1995 arbitration request was within time. It also rejected the State's arguments about a 30-day contractual bar and about defective proceedings due to non-joinder of the deceased contractor's heirs, and found that a court's jurisdiction under Sections 30/33 of the old Arbitration Act is narrow. It can only interfere for an "error of law apparent on the face of the award," not re-appreciate facts, and here the arbitrator's award disclosed no such error. It therefore set aside the trial court and High Court judgments and restored the arbitral award, directing full payment within eight weeks with costs to the appellant.

Lesson Learnt

Courts reviewing an arbitral award under the old Arbitration Act cannot act as an appellate forum re-examining evidence. They may intervene only for a clear error of law visible on the face of the award itself; and in contract-payment disputes, the limitation clock generally starts running only once the final bill is prepared and the claim is actually disputed, not from the original contract completion date.

M/S S.D. Shinde Tr. Partner vs Govt. of Maharashtra & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware