LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

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.

Civil Property & InheritanceSupreme Court of India

Ravi Khandelwal vs. M/s. Taluka Stores

Civil Appeal · 2023 INSC 615Decided 11 Jul 2023
Civil Appeal No. 4364 of 2023
Sanjay Kishan Kaul · Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Background

The landlord filed an eviction suit against his tenant in 1985 on the ground of bona fide necessity, but Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 barred filing such suits within five years of the tenancy. Courts differed over the years on whether this bar made the suit permanently void or just premature. After the trial court dismissed the suit as premature, the first appellate court ruled for the landlord, but the matter went into a prolonged second appeal, during which a larger bench of the Rajasthan High Court held the five-year bar was absolute, defeating the landlord's case even though decades had passed since filing.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the purpose of Section 14(3), protecting the tenant from eviction for five years, was already fulfilled since the litigation itself had lasted 38 years, far beyond that period. Relying on its earlier ruling in B. Banerjee v. Smt. Anita Pan, the Court ruled that a suit filed prematurely does not have to be restarted once the statutory embargo period has lapsed during the case's pendency, as forcing a fresh suit would cause pointless multiplicity of litigation. Using its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to do complete justice, the Court restored the eviction decree passed by the first appellate court and directed the tenant to hand over vacant possession by 30 September 2023.

Lesson Learnt

A lawsuit filed too early against a statutory waiting period is not necessarily dead forever. If that waiting period lapses while the case is still being litigated, courts can treat the original defect as cured rather than force the parties to start over, especially after decades of delay.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)
Ravi Khandelwal vs. M/s. Taluka Stores – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware