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.

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

P. R. Adikesavan vs. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras

Criminal AppealDecided 23 May 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2022
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud · Bela M. Trivedi

Background

During insolvency proceedings, a Single Judge of the Madras High Court issued a non-bailable warrant against the appellant, an advocate. When police tried to execute the warrant, the appellant along with about fifty other advocates surrounded ("gheraoed") the police and prevented them from doing so. The Madras High Court initiated contempt proceedings, and a Division Bench ultimately convicted the appellant, sentencing him to two weeks' simple imprisonment, a fine, and a one-year bar from practising in that High Court. He appealed to the Supreme Court, offering an apology.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found the appellant's conduct "thoroughly contemptuous," noting video evidence showed the appellant and fellow advocates obstructing police from executing a lawful court order, followed by baseless allegations against the judges hearing the matter, repeated adjournments, and a recusal application on improper grounds that was later withdrawn without re-filing. The Court held the appellant showed no genuine remorse and that his apology could not be accepted in these circumstances. It held the conviction and sentence were not disproportionate, and upheld the one-year debarment from practice, relying on its earlier ruling in R.K. Anand vs. Registrar, Delhi High Court. The appeal was dismissed.

Lesson Learnt

Obstructing the police from executing a lawful court order, especially by a lawyer who is officer of the court, invites strict contempt consequences; a late or tactical apology after prolonged obstructive conduct will not shield a contemnor from punishment, including suspension from practice.

P. R. Adikesavan vs. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware