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

Naeem Bano alias Gaindo vs Mohammad Rahees & Anr.

Not available · 2024 INSC 1000Decided 22 Nov 2024
Not available
Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna · Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Background

The appellant, a landlord, issued an eviction (ejectment) notice to her tenant in 2015 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The tenant's revision petition against the ejectment order was kept pending by the Allahabad High Court because a related question: the validity of the notice period under Section 106, given a conflict between a 1954 Uttar Pradesh State amendment (30-day notice) and a 2003 Parliamentary amendment (15-day notice): had been referred to a larger Bench of the High Court. The landlord appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing there was no need to wait for the reference to be answered.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that under Article 254 of the Constitution, when Parliament later enacts a law on a subject in the Concurrent List that conflicts with an earlier State law, the Parliamentary law prevails and the State law is impliedly repealed to the extent of the inconsistency, even if the State law had earlier received Presidential assent. Since Parliament's 2003 amendment to Section 106 came after the UP State's 1954 amendment, the Central 15-day notice period applied, and the UP amendment's 30-day requirement had become insignificant. The Court therefore held that the validity of the notice was no longer a live controversy and directed the High Court to decide the tenant's revision petition on its own merits promptly, without waiting for the larger Bench's answer to the reference.

Lesson Learnt

When Parliament makes a later law on a subject shared with the States (the Concurrent List), that Central law overrides an earlier, conflicting State law: a principle that here resolved years of uncertainty over how much notice a landlord must give before evicting a tenant.

Naeem Bano alias Gaindo vs Mohammad Rahees & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware