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

Ramkrishna Forgings Limited vs. Ravindra Loonkar, Resolution Professional of ACIL Limited & Anr.

Civil Appeal · 2023 INSC 1013Decided 21 Nov 2023
Civil Appeal No. 1527 of 2022
Vikram Nath · Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Background

ACIL Limited, an auto-components manufacturer, went through the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) after a bank's application. Ramkrishna Forgings Limited (RFL) submitted a resolution plan that was progressively improved through negotiation and was ultimately approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) with an overwhelming 88.56% vote. However, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) kept approval of the plan in abeyance and directed a fresh revaluation of ACIL's assets by the Official Liquidator, and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) upheld this order. RFL appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that an adjudicating authority's power to scrutinise a resolution plan under Sections 30(2) and 31 of the Code is limited and does not extend to second-guessing the commercial wisdom of the CoC. If the NCLT finds a genuine shortcoming, its remedy is to send the plan back to the CoC for resubmission, not to unilaterally order a revaluation and stall the process indefinitely. The Court found the NCLT's order directing revaluation was cryptic and gave no reasoned basis for departing from the ordinary process, which by itself made it legally unsustainable, since courts and tribunals have a duty to record cogent reasons for their orders. It set aside both the NCLT and NCLAT orders and directed the NCLT to pass a fresh, reasoned order on the pending resolution plan approval application within three weeks.

Lesson Learnt

Insolvency tribunals must give clear, reasoned orders and cannot override a creditors' committee's commercial decision on a resolution plan except on the narrow legal grounds the law actually provides: unexplained delay-causing orders in insolvency proceedings will not survive appellate scrutiny.

Ramkrishna Forgings Limited vs. Ravindra Loonkar, Resolution Professional of ACIL Limited & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware