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

Shruti Manav Sharma v. Sunanina Singh

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 843Decided 12 Aug 2026
C.A. No.-010601-010606 - 2026 (arising from SLP (C) Nos. 12592-12597 of 2026)
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Justice Alok Aradhe

Background

An elderly widow (the original plaintiff) alleged that her granddaughter and the granddaughter's husband, while she lived in their household, used undue influence to make her transfer valuable family shareholding, LLP interests, and sale proceeds worth over Rs. 1,000 crores into their names, leaving other family members with a tiny fraction of the estate. She sued for cancellation of the transfers and obtained a temporary injunction from a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court freezing the disputed properties pending trial. A Division Bench of the High Court reversed that injunction on appeal, engaging in a detailed re-examination of the Will, the transfers, and applicable statutes. After the original plaintiff's death, her legal representatives (including the appellant, another granddaughter) pursued the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court restored the Single Judge's injunction, holding that the Division Bench had exceeded the limited scope of appellate review over a discretionary injunction order. An appellate court can only interfere with a temporary injunction if the trial court's discretion was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely, or contrary to settled principles - it cannot substitute its own view merely because it might have reached a different conclusion. The Court found the Single Judge's order to be properly grounded in the three settled requirements for injunctions (prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury), whereas the Division Bench had improperly conducted a "mini-trial," delving into the merits of the Will's interpretation and disputed facts that should be decided only after full trial. The Court also criticized the broader practice of courts writing lengthy, merits-laden injunction orders instead of confining themselves to the three settled conditions.

Lesson Learnt

A temporary injunction is only a preservative "holding order," not a decision on the merits - appellate courts must not turn an injunction appeal into a rehearing of the underlying case, and interference is warranted only when the lower court's discretion was clearly arbitrary or contrary to settled legal principles, not simply because the appellate judges would have decided differently.

Shruti Manav Sharma v. Sunanina Singh – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware