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.

Company & Insolvency LawSupreme Court of India

R. Raghavendran vs C. Raja John & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2023 INSC 849Decided 13 Sept 2023
Civil Appeal No. 2552 of 2022
Sanjay Kishan Kaul · Sudhanshu Dhulia

Background

A company undergoing insolvency proceedings was found by the NCLAT to qualify as a Micro, Small & Medium Enterprise (MSME), which under the law allows even a disqualified promoter to submit a resolution (revival) plan. Relying on an earlier NCLAT ruling in "Bafna's case," the NCLAT went further and held that because the company was an MSME, its promoter did not even need to compete with other bidders to regain control. The Resolution Professional appealed to the Supreme Court, saying this reading gave promoters of MSMEs an unwarranted free pass.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court agreed that being an MSME entitles a promoter to submit a resolution plan despite disqualifications that would otherwise apply, but clarified that this does not mean the promoter is excused from competing with other resolution applicants through the normal bidding process. The Court held that the broader observations in Bafna's case were made only in the narrow context of a pre-Committee-of-Creditors settlement or a Section 12A withdrawal, not as a general rule exempting MSME promoters from competition. It therefore set aside the specific paragraphs of the NCLAT order that had excused the promoter from competing, while giving the promoter a two-month window to pursue a one-time settlement with financial creditors before the Resolution Professional proceeds with declaring e-voting results on competing plans.

Lesson Learnt

MSME status gives a company's promoter a chance to bid to take back control during insolvency, but it does not exempt them from having their plan compete on equal footing with other interested resolution applicants.

R. Raghavendran vs C. Raja John & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware