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.

Company & Insolvency LawSupreme Court of India

Narinder Garg & Others vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Others

Not availableDecided 28 Mar 2022
Not available

Background

The petitioners, a corporate debtor company and its directors, faced multiple criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (cheque dishonour) filed by the respondent bank. After the National Company Law Tribunal approved a Resolution Plan for the company under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the petitioners sought a writ to quash these pending criminal complaints, arguing that the approved resolution plan (which included the bank's dues) should wipe out the pending prosecutions. A connected older writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 300 of 2020) raised the same point.

Decision Breakdown

The Court relied on its earlier three-judge bench decision in P. Mohanraj v. Shah Brothers Ispat Private Limited, (2021) 6 SCC 258, which held that the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code protects only the corporate debtor itself, not the individual directors, who remain statutorily liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court held that approval of a resolution plan does not automatically extinguish pending Section 138/141 prosecutions against the directors, and found the position in P. Mohanraj directly applicable and conclusive. Both writ petitions were accordingly dismissed.

Lesson Learnt

Approval of a company's insolvency resolution plan protects the company from further liability but does not shield its directors from personal criminal liability for cheques dishonoured before the moratorium: directors cannot rely on the company's insolvency proceedings to escape a Section 138 prosecution against themselves.

Narinder Garg & Others vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Others – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware