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.

Contempt of CourtSupreme Court of India

Prashant Bandyopadhyay v. Sudhir Tripathi

Civil Appeal · 2025 INSC 63Decided 8 Jan 2025
Contempt Petition (C) No. 735 of 2019 (in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017)
Justice J.K. Maheshwari · Justice Rajesh Bindal

Background

Petitioner No. 1, Prashant Bandyopadhyay, was appointed as a Routine Clerk at ABM College, Jamshedpur, and his salary claim was allowed by the "J. Sinha Commission," later confirmed by the Supreme Court's 2017 order and by a University absorption notification in 2018. He had received arrears only from the date Jharkhand was carved out of Bihar (2000) onward, but not for the earlier period, and filed a contempt petition for the unpaid balance. Petitioner No. 2, Hiralal Ram, had died, and no Commission order existed in his favour.

Decision Breakdown

The Court dismissed the claim relating to petitioner No. 2 outright since no order had ever been passed for him and rejected the attempt to substitute his legal heirs. For petitioner No. 1, the Court found that his pre-2000 arrears claim was against the State of Bihar, but no one from Bihar had been made a party (contemnor) in this petition, so that claim could not be adjudicated here; his claim for the Jharkhand period had already been resolved and paid. Finding no deliberate defiance of the Court's order, the Court declined to hold contempt but, following the same pattern as related cases, directed the University's Registrar/Vice-Chancellor to hold a fact-finding enquiry into any surviving salary and pension claims within set timeframes.

Lesson Learnt

A contempt petition can only succeed against those actually made parties to it. If the entity responsible for an alleged default (here, the former State of Bihar) is not joined as a respondent, the court cannot direct compliance or find contempt against it in that proceeding.

Prashant Bandyopadhyay v. Sudhir Tripathi – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware