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.

Consumer RightsSupreme Court of India

M/S Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Suresh Chand Jain & Anr. (2023 INSC 649)

Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2023 INSC 649Decided 26 Jul 2023
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5263 of 2023
J.B. Pardiwala · Manoj Misra

Background

An insurer (Universal Sompo) and a bank had issued fire and burglary insurance policies to the complainant, Suresh Chand Jain, covering his goods. After a theft and later a fire at his premises, the insurer repudiated the theft claim and closed the fire claim for want of documents. The complainant won before the State Consumer Commission and then the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which held the insurer and bank jointly liable to pay compensation. The insurer then sought special leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court against the NCDRC's order.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court did not decide the insurance dispute on its merits. Instead, it examined whether a party should approach the Supreme Court directly under Article 136 against an NCDRC appellate order, or first go to the jurisdictional High Court under Article 226 (writ) or Article 227 (supervisory jurisdiction). Relying on its earlier decision in Ibrat Faizan and on L. Chandra Kumar, the Court held that approaching the High Court first is the appropriate and more accessible route, and only after the High Court decides can either party come to the Supreme Court. The Court therefore disposed of the petition without ruling on the merits, granting the insurer liberty to approach the High Court, and directed refund of the 50% amount the insurer had earlier deposited with the Court's Registry (since the complainant could not withdraw it for want of proper documents).

Lesson Learnt

Litigants dissatisfied with an NCDRC order should ordinarily first approach the jurisdictional High Court (writ or supervisory jurisdiction) rather than rushing directly to the Supreme Court under Article 136, since the High Court route is more accessible and cost-effective, and the Supreme Court remains available only after that stage.

M/S Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Suresh Chand Jain & Anr. (2023 INSC 649) – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware