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

Premshila Kuer v. Dr. Amrendra Narayan Yadav & Anr.

Civil Appeal · 2025 INSC 57Decided 8 Jan 2025
Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 103-104 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2788-2789 of 2017
Justice J.K. Maheshwari · Justice Rajesh Bindal

Background

The petitioner's late husband, Ayodhya Prasad, worked as a Lab In-charge at a college and his claim for absorption into regular service was allowed by the "J. Sinha Commission" and later approved by the Supreme Court. He died in 2012, before the university formally absorbed him, so the university first fixed his absorption date as 1990 (treating the intervening period as notional duty for pension purposes) but then tried to change it to his date of death, which would have reduced the family's benefits. The petitioner alleged this amounted to contempt of the Court's earlier orders and sought payment of pending salary and family pension.

Decision Breakdown

The Court rejected the university's later attempt to shift the absorption date to the date of death and confirmed that the employee should be treated as absorbed from 12.02.1990, with his service counted notionally for retiral and pension benefits. However, it found that whether the employee had actually worked (which affects entitlement to salary/arrears) was a disputed factual question requiring an inquiry, which could not be conducted in contempt proceedings. The Court disposed of the contempt petition with directions: the petitioner must submit her claim to the university's Registrar/Vice-Chancellor, who must hold an inquiry and pass a reasoned order on salary and family pension within set time limits, independent of unrelated restrictive orders passed in a separate contempt case, with excess payments (if any) recoverable and a right of appeal to the High Court.

Lesson Learnt

Once a court-approved absorption date is fixed for a deceased employee, authorities cannot unilaterally alter it to reduce family pension entitlements; disputed factual questions about actual service, however, must go through a proper administrative inquiry rather than being resolved in contempt proceedings.

Premshila Kuer v. Dr. Amrendra Narayan Yadav & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware