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.

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Rajnish Kumar Rai vs. Union of India

Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2023 INSC 862Decided 6 Sept 2023
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20054 of 2023
Aniruddha Bose · Bela M. Trivedi

Background

The petitioner had himself filed his original case before the Central Administrative Tribunal's Hyderabad bench, but after it reached the final hearing stage, he sought to have it transferred to the Ahmedabad bench since he had relocated there after retirement. The Tribunal's Principal Bench in Delhi rejected the transfer, and the Gujarat High Court dismissed his challenge to that rejection, relying on the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay that only the High Court within whose territory the Tribunal's Principal Bench sits can review such transfer orders.

Decision Breakdown

The Court noted that although a coordinate Bench had referred the correctness of the Alapan Bandyopadhyay ruling to a larger Bench in a separate case, no larger Bench had yet decided the point, so judicial propriety required following the existing precedent. Independently examining the merits anyway (in case it wished to invoke its special powers under Article 142), the Court found no real hardship justifying the transfer: the petitioner himself had originally chosen the Hyderabad bench, that case had already reached the final hearing stage, and mere post-retirement relocation and inconvenience were not sufficient grounds to disturb that. The special leave petition was accordingly dismissed.

Lesson Learnt

Courts are reluctant to transfer a case away from a tribunal bench the litigant originally chose, especially once the case is close to conclusion: personal inconvenience from a later relocation is not, by itself, sufficient grounds for a transfer.

Rajnish Kumar Rai vs. Union of India – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware