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.

Uncategorized (needs manual review)Supreme Court

Shankar Lal Sharma v. Rajesh Koolwal

Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2025 INSC 200Decided 29 Jan 2025

SLP(C) No.-017157 - 2022

Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna · Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Background

The petitioner, a 73-year-old man with limited financial means and low vision, was pursuing a monetary claim in-person against a respondent company through a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. Because he struggled to argue in English, the Court in 2022 had appointed an advocate, free of charge, to assist him as amicus curiae. Over the following two years, that lawyer appeared on the petitioner's behalf around fourteen times without being paid, ultimately helping broker a settlement instead of a full merits hearing where the petitioner claimed he could have received approximately one crore rupees.

Decision Breakdown

After hearing both sides negotiate over several sittings, the Court directed the respondent company to pay the petitioner Rs. 20,00,000 (twenty lakh rupees) in full and final settlement of all his claims, closing the litigation. The Court also directed the company to separately pay the volunteer amicus lawyer Rs. 1,00,000 as a token of appreciation for his unpaid services. Beyond the settlement itself, the judges used the order to make broader observations about access to justice, praising lawyers who voluntarily assist litigants of limited means and criticising the trend of litigants having to pay large fees for representation without always getting substantive relief.

Lesson Learnt

Litigants without financial means are not shut out of the highest court. The Supreme Court can and does appoint free legal counsel (amicus curiae) to represent them, and young lawyers are encouraged to take up such pro bono work as part of the profession's public-service tradition.

Shankar Lal Sharma v. Rajesh Koolwal – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware