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

Nirendra Nath Kar vs Gopal Navin Bhai Dave & Ors.

Civil AppealDecided 29 Sept 2022
Civil Appeal No.4448 of 2015
Ajay Rastogi · B.V. Nagarathna · C.T. Ravikumar as the second judge

Background

Basanti Cotton Mills Private Limited was struck off the Register of Companies in 2006 under Section 560(5) of the Companies Act, 1956, at the instance of its original directors, after it had stopped filing returns since 2002-03. Nirendra Nath Kar, claiming to be a director appointed later, applied in 2010 to have the company's name restored, and a Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court allowed this. On appeal, the Division Bench reversed that order, holding that Kar's own documents (mainly DIN filings from 2008, well after the strike-off) did not establish he was ever validly appointed a director, so he had no standing ("locus") to seek restoration.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court examined the Registrar of Companies' own records, which showed only three original directors and no valid Form 32 (the statutory form confirming a new director's appointment) for Kar or the others he claimed were his co-directors. The Court noted the company's last balance sheet showed a paid-up capital of only Rs.7,000, making it a defunct company under the Act, and that 16 years had passed since the strike-off with no operations shown at any point. Finding no error in the High Court's fact-finding on Kar's lack of locus standi, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.

Lesson Learnt

A person who wants to challenge a company's removal from the register must first be able to prove, through the Registrar's own official records (not just self-filed digital identification forms), that they actually hold a valid, properly documented position such as director. Courts will not restore standing based on incomplete or unilateral filings made years after the disputed event.

Nirendra Nath Kar vs Gopal Navin Bhai Dave & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware