EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

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.

Company & Insolvency LawSupreme Court of India

Greenopolis Welfare Confederation v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1070

Fraud by the party who originally triggered a company's insolvency process doesn't automatically undo the entire process for everyone, once other genuine creditors and stakeholders (like homebuyers) are involved, the adjudicating body must weigh whether continuing the process still serves them, rather than simply cancelling it outright.

Decided 30 Sept 2026View details

Banking & Debt Recovery LawSupreme Court of India

Sterling Holiday Resorts Limited v. M/S P.M. Associates & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1071

The legal principle protecting the finality of confirmed auction sales exists to reward a lawfully conducted process, not to shield a sale riddled with procedural violations: courts can and will unwind even a long-settled auction if the underlying process was illegal.

Decided 30 Sept 2026View details

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Sainaba v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1069

For a cheque-bounce case, correctly addressing and dispatching the statutory demand notice is enough to trigger the legal presumption of valid service: the accused cannot escape liability merely because someone else at the same address received the notice on their behalf.

Decided 30 Sept 2026View details

Arbitration & Commercial LawSupreme Court of India

M/S Awadhesh Singh Gautam v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1072

A government authority cannot bypass a contract's own procedural safeguards, like prior notice and a designated approving officer, to recover a disputed, unproven claim by simply withholding payments legitimately due under a separate contract.

Decided 30 Sept 2026View details

Civil Property & InheritanceDelhi High Court

Jagdish Kumar Arora vs. Dinesh Mittal

Regular First Appeal · 2026:DHC:8466

Occupying commercial premises, taking the keys, and carrying out renovation work can create tenant-like possession obligations even without ever signing a formal registered lease: verbal/WhatsApp-documented agreements plus conduct can be enough to lose a possession dispute.

Decided 29 Sept 2026View details

Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Dinesh Chand Upadhyay & Ors. vs. State/NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8489

Courts will not permit a private settlement to extinguish criminal proceedings for serious sexual offences once the complainant has already testified in support of the prosecution at trial.

Decided 29 Sept 2026View details

Arbitration & Commercial LawDelhi High Court

Mathur & Kapre Associates Private Limited vs. Union of India

Enforcement Petition (Commercial Arbitration) · 2026:DHC:8492

A recurring practical reminder: parties seeking to enforce arbitral awards in Delhi must ensure stamp duty is paid within one month of the award, or risk having enforcement proceedings stalled on this technical but mandatory ground.

Decided 29 Sept 2026View details

Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Rajender Kumar & Ors. vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8483

A private "compromise" between accused and complainant cannot override a serious criminal case once the survivor has testified in support of the prosecution: courts will not quash FIRs involving grave offences (especially against women) merely because parties have settled privately.

Decided 29 Sept 2026View details

Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Robin Kumar and Others vs. The State and Another

Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8480

A "compromise" in a matrimonial criminal case is unlikely to result in quashing of the FIR while the underlying marriage itself remains legally undissolved: courts want to see the matrimonial status resolved first.

Decided 29 Sept 2026View details

6228 more judgements for members

You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.

Log in to see more

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.

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Pragya Prasun v. Union of India

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2025 INSC 599Decided 30 Apr 2025

Writ Petition (Civil) No.289 of 2024 (with Writ Petition (Civil) No.49 of 2025)

Justice J.B. Pardiwala · Justice R. Mahadevan

Background

The petitioners in the two connected writ petitions were acid attack survivors with permanent facial disfigurement and severe eye burns, and a person with 100% blindness. They could not complete mandatory Digital KYC/e-KYC/Video-KYC processes (required for opening bank accounts, buying SIM cards, and accessing government schemes) because these processes rely on "liveness" checks such as blinking the eyes, which they are physically unable to perform. They sought directions to the Union Government, RBI, SEBI and TRAI to create accessible, alternative KYC methods for persons with disabilities, arguing that the current system violates their right to dignity and equality under Article 21 and the RPwD Act, 2016.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that in the digital era, the right to life under Article 21 must be read to include a right to digital access, and that excluding persons with disabilities from essential digital services like KYC verification amounts to a denial of substantive equality and dignity. It found that current KYC norms (mandating eye-blinking for "liveness" and other rigid biometric checks) were not designed with accessibility in mind, and that the State has a constitutional obligation to provide "reasonable accommodations" under the RPwD Act. Rather than leaving the matter to policy discretion, the Court issued a detailed set of 20 binding directions to the Central Government, RBI and other regulators, including requiring alternative liveness-verification methods beyond blinking, continuation of paper-based/physical KYC as a fallback, acceptance of thumb impressions, WCAG-compliant accessible websites/apps, dedicated grievance redressal and helplines for persons with disabilities, and mandatory accessibility audits, and disposed of both petitions with no costs.

Lesson Learnt

Persons with disabilities have an enforceable constitutional right to accessible digital public services: a technology requirement (like "blink to verify") that works for most people but structurally excludes some can be struck down or reformed as unconstitutional, not merely treated as an unfortunate side effect of automation.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

Pragya Prasun v. Union of India – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware