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

The Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. vs. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr.

Civil Appeal · 2023 INSC 607Decided 6 Jul 2023
Civil Appeal Nos. 7224-7226 of 2009
B.R. Gavai · Sanjay Karol · Aravind Kumar · Abhay S. Oka · Sanjay Karol with Justice Oka as author

Background

The appellant, a financially-troubled aluminium manufacturer that had set up its own captive power plant, asked the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in December 2001 to reduce its contracted maximum electricity demand from 23,000 KVA to 10,000 KVA. Despite repeated follow-ups, the Board took about two-and-a-half years to act on this request, all the while continuing to bill the company at the higher 23,000 KVA rate; the company paid substantial amounts under protest to avoid disconnection. The Madras High Court held that, absent the Board's formal sanction, the company remained contractually bound to pay at the un-reduced rate, and dismissed the company's challenge.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that even when the State or a State instrumentality is acting under a private commercial contract, it remains bound by Article 14's requirement to act fairly, reasonably, and without unreasonable delay: a principle traced through Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and the Natural Resources Allocation reference. Taking two-and-a-half years to process a straightforward demand-reduction request, without any explanation, while similar applications from other consumers were processed promptly, was held to be arbitrary; the Court considered six months a reasonable outer limit for such a decision. The Board was directed to refund, with 6% simple interest, the excess amount the company had paid for the 13,000 KVA differential, calculated from six months after the original application until the date the revised agreement was actually signed in July 2004.

Lesson Learnt

A government body cannot hide behind rigid contractual clauses to justify indefinitely delaying a routine decision affecting a private party: Article 14's guarantee of fair and reasonable State action applies even within ordinary commercial contracts.

The Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. vs. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware