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.

Contempt of CourtSupreme Court of India

N. Srinivasa Rao vs Smt. Ranjeev R. Acharya

Civil AppealDecided 5 Sept 2022
Civil Appeal No. 2711 of 2010
S. Ravindra Bhat

Background

These were contempt petitions filed alleging that certain persons had disobeyed or failed to comply with directions issued by the Supreme Court in earlier civil appeals (Civil Appeal No. 2711/2010 and connected Civil Appeals Nos. 2712-2713/2010). The Court had earlier issued notice to the alleged contemnors calling upon them to explain their conduct, and the matter came up for final hearing on the contempt petitions.

Decision Breakdown

After hearing counsel for the petitioners (in support of the contempt petitions) and counsel for the alleged contemnors, the Supreme Court held it saw no reason to pursue the contempt proceedings any further. It discharged the notice that had been issued to the alleged contemnors and closed the contempt petitions, without recording any further reasons or findings of contempt.

Lesson Learnt

Contempt jurisdiction is discretionary and exercised sparingly, even where notice has been issued to alleged contemnors, the Court can close proceedings without a finding of contempt if, on hearing both sides, it is satisfied that continuing the proceedings serves no purpose.

N. Srinivasa Rao vs Smt. Ranjeev R. Acharya – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware