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.

Tax & Customs LawSupreme Court of India

Punjab National Bank vs. Union of India Thr. Its Secretary

Civil AppealDecided 24 Feb 2022
Civil Appeal No. 2196 of 2012
L. Nageswara Rao · Vineet Saran · Aniruddha Bose

Background

A company (Rathi Ispat Ltd.) mortgaged its land, building, and machinery to Punjab National Bank (as lead bank) to secure loans. Separately, the Central Excise Department had earlier initiated proceedings against the company for evading excise duty, and in 2007, years after the bank's charge was created, the Excise Commissioner ordered confiscation of the same properties under a Rule (173Q(2)) that had, in fact, already been omitted from the law in 2000. When the bank tried to take possession of the mortgaged properties under the SARFAESI Act after the company defaulted, the Excise Department blocked it, citing the confiscation. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the bank's challenge.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the 2007 confiscation orders were void from the outset because the rule authorising confiscation (Rule 173Q(2)) had already been removed from the statute book years earlier: the department could not confiscate property under a provision that no longer existed. Separately, the Court held that even if the confiscation had been valid, a secured creditor's rights under the SARFAESI Act (2002) override the Central Excise Department's claim, since the SARFAESI Act has an overriding effect over other laws and there was no "first charge" provision favouring the excise department at the relevant time. The appeal was allowed and the confiscation orders quashed.

Lesson Learnt

A government authority cannot exercise a statutory power (like confiscation) once the underlying provision has been repealed or omitted, and secured lenders' rights over mortgaged property generally take priority over unsecured government dues unless a specific law says otherwise.

Punjab National Bank vs. Union of India Thr. Its Secretary – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware