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 of India

State of U.P. & Another vs. Mohan Lal

Not available · 2024 INSC 375Decided 3 May 2024
Not available
Justice C.T. Ravikumar · Justice Rajesh Bindal

Background

The State of Uttar Pradesh sought to challenge a 2009 order of the Allahabad High Court, but did not file its Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court until years later, resulting in a delay of 1,633 days. Along with the petition, the State filed an application asking the Court to condone (excuse) this huge delay, explaining that the file took time to move through various government departments (the Competent Authority at Bareilly, the District Government Counsel for legal opinion, and finally State Government permission) and blaming part of the delay on the matter being entrusted to counsel.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found the State's explanation for the delay unconvincing, noting that the State had already appeared and been heard by the High Court before the impugned order was passed, so it was well aware of the case and had no excuse for waiting so long. The Court also found that the State had misrepresented facts to bolster its case, citing a supposedly "pending" identical matter as a reason for condonation, when in fact both petitions referenced (with a cause-title that was itself misstated) had already been dismissed on delay and on merits. Because the State failed to show "sufficient cause" for the delay, and had also been less than candid with the Court, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently the Special Leave Petition itself was also dismissed without being heard on merits.

Lesson Learnt

Even government litigants get no special leniency for prolonged internal file-processing delays, and courts scrutinize delay-condonation applications closely, misstating facts about related cases (even inadvertently) can seriously damage a litigant's credibility and cost them the opportunity to be heard at all.

State of U.P. & Another vs. Mohan Lal – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware