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.

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

State Bank of India vs Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

Civil Appeal · 2022 INSC 1168Decided 4 Nov 2022
Civil Appeal No. 6954 of 2022
M.R. Shah · Krishna Murari · M.M. Sundresh · Shah

Background

The respondent, Arvindra Electronics, had its cash credit account with SBI classified as a Non-Performing Asset. The Bank offered a One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme in 2017 under which the borrower was to pay about Rs. 10.5 crore (against an outstanding of nearly Rs. 14 crore) by a fixed deadline of 21.05.2018, failing which the OTS would become infructuous. The borrower paid part of the amount but defaulted on the balance of roughly Rs. 2.02 crore, and instead of paying, approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Article 226, which granted a further six weeks to pay. The Bank appealed this extension to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the OTS scheme was a contractual arrangement with a clear, binding deadline that the borrower had failed to meet, and that a High Court exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot rewrite or extend the terms of such a scheme in the borrower's favour. Relying on its own earlier decision in Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., the Court held that a defaulting borrower has no right to claim an extension merely because other borrowers may have been given more time in unrelated cases: any extension is a matter of mutual agreement between borrower and bank (permissible under Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act), not something a court can impose. The Court accordingly quashed the High Court's order, dismissed the original writ petition, and allowed the Bank's appeal, with no order as to costs.

Lesson Learnt

A borrower who fails to honour the strict payment deadline of a bank's one-time settlement scheme cannot use writ jurisdiction to compel the bank to extend it: such settlement terms are contractual and binding, and courts will not rewrite them in the defaulting party's favour.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)
State Bank of India vs Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware