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.

Banking & Debt Recovery LawSupreme Court of India

The Authorised Officer, Central Bank of India vs. Shanmugavelu

Not available · 2024 INSC 80Decided 2 Feb 2024
Not available
Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud · Justice J.B. Pardiwala · Justice Manoj Misra

Background

Central Bank of India had financed a business against a mortgaged property in Chennai. When the loan turned into a non-performing asset, the bank took possession of the property under the SARFAESI Act and put it up for e-auction. The respondent was declared the highest bidder at over Rs. 9.62 crore and paid the initial deposit, but failed to pay the balance sale price within the stipulated 90 days. The bank forfeited his entire earnest money deposit under the SARFAESI Rules. The Madras High Court held that the bank could only forfeit an amount equal to its actual loss, not the whole deposit, and the bank appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the bank's forfeiture of the entire deposit. It held that the forfeiture provisions under the SARFAESI Rules are a form of pre-estimated/liquidated compensation (akin to "earnest money" principles), not a penalty requiring proof of actual loss under Sections 73-74 of the Contract Act, and that a defaulting auction-purchaser who knowingly took the risk of the e-auction cannot later invoke equity to recover the money. The Court clarified that courts/tribunals should be very reluctant to interfere with an authorised officer's forfeiture order unless an exceptional case is made out, and laid down the applicable legal test for when such interference is warranted.

Lesson Learnt

If you bid in a bank e-auction and are declared the highest bidder, you must be certain of your financial capacity to pay the full balance within the deadline. Courts will not ordinarily protect a defaulting bidder's earnest money merely because forfeiting the whole amount seems harsh compared to the bank's actual loss.

The Authorised Officer, Central Bank of India vs. Shanmugavelu – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware