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

Shri Digant vs. M/s. P.D.T. Trading Co.

Not available · 2025 INSC 1352Decided 18 Nov 2025
Not available
Justice Manoj Misra · Justice Joymalya Bagchi

Background

Shri Digant sued his tenants for possession under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. During the trial, the tenants' lawyer filed a "pursis" (a note to the court) stating he had lost contact with his clients and had no further instructions, but he never formally withdrew from the case. The trial proceeded, and the suit was decreed in the landlord's favour in 2015. The first appellate court upheld this after detailed scrutiny, but the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), exercising its supervisory writ jurisdiction under Article 227, set aside the appellate order and sent the case back, holding that the tenants should have been given fresh notice to engage another lawyer.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded the limited scope of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, which exists only to correct jurisdictional errors or grave failures of justice, not to re-examine a well-reasoned finding of a lower appellate court on the merits. It found the lawyer's "pursis" was merely a notice of possible future action, not a formal withdrawal of his vakalatnama (authorization to represent), and that the tenants had made no effort over three months to engage a new lawyer or claim they were unaware of the notice. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the original decree in the landlord's favour.

Lesson Learnt

A High Court's supervisory power under Article 227 is not a backdoor appeal on facts. It can only be used for genuine jurisdictional errors, not simply because the High Court might have decided differently. Also, a lawyer merely saying "I have no instructions" is not the same as formally withdrawing from representing a client.

Shri Digant vs. M/s. P.D.T. Trading Co. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware