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.

Arbitration & Commercial LawSupreme Court of India

Sarita Singh vs. M/s Shree Infosoft Private Limited

Civil AppealDecided 12 Jan 2022
Civil Appeal No. 346 of 2022
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud · A.S. Bopanna

Background

Sarita Singh, a software developer, was sent by her employer on a short one-week (later extended to about a month) business visit to the US in 2013, after which she was promoted with a higher salary. She resigned a few months later after facing workplace issues under new management. The company then sued her for about Rs. 5.7 lakh, claiming her US visit was an "overseas deputation" under her employment contract obligating her to serve a minimum period afterward or repay the company's expenses; the trial court, first appellate court, and Punjab & Haryana High Court all ruled against her and upheld a partial recovery decree.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court allowed her appeal and dismissed the recovery suit entirely, holding that "deputation" has a specific, well-settled legal meaning (a formal, consensual, documented arrangement to work outside one's parent department/employer for a defined period) and a brief undocumented business trip does not qualify. The company, as the party claiming recovery, bore the burden of proving she was sent on deputation under the contractual clause, and it produced no evidence of any deputation letter or agreement; her version, that it was simply a business meeting, was unrebutted. The Court also strongly criticized the company for dragging a former employee who had merely raised workplace grievances and resigned into years of litigation, calling it "needless harassment" and a "reprisal," and awarded her Rs. 1 lakh in litigation costs.

Lesson Learnt

A contractual clause about "deputation" or similar service-bond conditions cannot be invoked loosely against an employee for an ordinary business trip; the employer must prove the specific formal arrangement the clause actually requires, and courts will penalize employers who use litigation to retaliate against employees who raise legitimate grievances.

Sarita Singh vs. M/s Shree Infosoft Private Limited – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware