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

Prakash Bhalotia (D) Thr His LRs vs Indra Chandra Goyal (D) Thru.LRs

Not available · 2024 INSC 941Decided 25 Sept 2024
Not available
Justice J.K. Maheshwari · Justice Rajesh Bindal

Background

The landlord had rented a shop to the tenant for a fixed five-year term starting in 1985, after which the tenancy was to continue only if the landlord agreed to a 15% monthly rent increase; no such fresh agreement was ever signed. When the tenant allegedly stopped paying rent regularly, the landlord sued for eviction on grounds of non-payment, but the Trial Court and, on revision, the High Court both dismissed the suit in the tenant's favour. Both the original landlord and tenant died during the prolonged litigation and were represented by their legal heirs by the time the case reached the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court examined the tenant's own affidavits and records, filed pursuant to the Court's earlier directions, and found repeated and continuing defaults in monthly rent payments even during the pendency of the litigation: payments were made in lump sums, months late, rather than regularly as the law required. It held that the Trial Court's findings dismissing the eviction suit were "completely perverse," having ignored this documented pattern of default, and that the High Court's revisional court had wrongly declined to correct this error. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower courts' orders, decreed eviction, but gave the tenant's heirs until 31 March 2025 to vacate after clearing all outstanding dues.

Lesson Learnt

In a rent-controlled tenancy, a tenant must pay rent regularly and on time, including during the years a case is being litigated in court, because chronic delayed or lump-sum payment can itself be treated as "default" justifying eviction, regardless of how the case started.

Prakash Bhalotia (D) Thr His LRs vs Indra Chandra Goyal (D) Thru.LRs – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware