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

Ratan Lal Patel vs Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya & Another

Civil AppealDecided 22 Mar 2022
Civil Appeal No. 2057 of 2022

Background

The appellant had earlier won a writ petition before the High Court's single judge, securing continuation in service up to age 62 (an extended retirement age), and this was upheld by the Division Bench in a detailed judgment dismissing the University's appeal. The University then filed a review application before the Division Bench, which allowed it and recalled its own earlier reasoned judgment, restoring the appeal to file. The appellant, aggrieved by this recall, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court examined the High Court's review order and found it merely stated there was "apparent error on the face of record which calls for interference" without identifying what that error actually was: a cryptic, non-speaking, non-reasoned order. The Court reiterated the settled principle that review jurisdiction can only be exercised where an error apparent on the face of the record is actually demonstrated and explained in a reasoned order, not merely asserted. Because the High Court's review order failed this standard, the Supreme Court quashed it and remitted the matter back to the High Court's Division Bench to decide the review application afresh with proper reasons, within three months, while expressing no opinion on the merits either way.

Lesson Learnt

A court exercising review power must clearly spell out the specific error it is correcting: a bare assertion that "an error is apparent" is not enough, and an order that fails to explain itself can be set aside on that ground alone, regardless of who might ultimately be right on the underlying merits.

Ratan Lal Patel vs Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya & Another – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware