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.

Labour & Industrial LawDelhi High Court

Tarkeshwar vs. A.V. Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2026:DHC:7622Decided 8 Sept 2026New Delhi Bench
W.P.(C) 888/2009CNR: DLHC010237192009
Justice Amit Mahajan

Background

The petitioner had worked as a spray painter for the respondent company for nearly 19 years when he fell ill while on sanctioned leave in his native village in 2006, sent a medical certificate by post, but was terminated after the company called him back to duty and he allegedly could not immediately produce fitness proof. The Labour Court had dismissed his claim, treating his failure to prove his illness as proof he had voluntarily abandoned his job.

Decision Breakdown

The High Court found this reasoning legally flawed: it is the employer, not the employee, who bears the burden of proving voluntary abandonment of service, and the company here had led no evidence at all to support that claim. Given the short absence (about three weeks over the sanctioned leave), the company's failure to hold any proper enquiry before terminating him, and his 19 years of service, the Court held the termination illegal, but since the company itself had since shut down and the case had dragged on for nearly two decades, it awarded a lump-sum compensation of ₹4,00,000 instead of ordering reinstatement.

Lesson Learnt

An employer who wants to argue an employee simply walked away from their job must actually prove it with evidence: silence or gaps in the employee's own explanation are not enough, and mere brief absence after sanctioned leave rarely amounts to abandonment.

Tarkeshwar vs. A.V. Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware