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

Prakash Chimanlal Sheth v. Jagruti Keyur Rajpopat

Criminal Appeal · 2025 INSC 897Decided 25 Jul 2025
Criminal Appeal Nos. of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 5540-5543 of 2024)
Justice Sanjay Kumar · Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Background

The appellant had lent money to a couple, with the wife (the respondent) issuing four cheques toward repayment. These cheques were deposited at a Kotak Mahindra Bank branch in Mumbai but bounced due to insufficient funds. The appellant filed criminal complaints in Mangalore, but the Magistrate returned them for lack of jurisdiction, believing the appellant's own bank account was at the Mumbai branch where the cheques were physically deposited. The Karnataka High Court upheld this. In fact, the appellant's account had, by the time of deposit, been transferred to a Mangalore branch: the Mumbai branch was used only as a collection point.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court explained that under Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act (as amended in 2015), jurisdiction for a cheque-bounce complaint lies with the court where the payee's own bank account is maintained, the branch where the cheque is delivered for collection into that account, not wherever the cheque happens to be physically presented. Since it was undisputed that the appellant's account was actually at the Bendurwell, Mangalore branch by the relevant time, the Mangalore court did have jurisdiction, and both the Magistrate and the High Court had proceeded on a mistaken factual premise. The appeals were allowed, both lower orders were set aside, and the Mangalore Magistrate was directed to take up and decide the complaints expeditiously.

Lesson Learnt

In a cheque-bounce case, the right court to file a complaint is determined by where the payee (the person who received the cheque) actually maintains their own bank account, not by which branch was merely used to physically deposit or collect the cheque.

Prakash Chimanlal Sheth v. Jagruti Keyur Rajpopat – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware