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.

Environmental LawSupreme Court of India

The State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru (M.P.)

Civil AppealDecided 1 Jun 2022
Civil Appeal Nos. 4522-4524 of 2022
B.R. Gavai · Hima Kohli · Gavai · Kohli

Background

The State of Andhra Pradesh was rebuilding a resort at Rushikonda Hill near Visakhapatnam after demolishing the old structure. A Member of Parliament complained to the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which took up the matter and, on 6 May 2022, banned further construction pending a fresh expert report, even though an earlier four-member expert committee had found no violation, and even though the Andhra Pradesh High Court was already hearing a separate PIL on the same construction and had earlier allowed work to continue in line with existing environmental permissions. The NGT also refused to lift its construction ban when the State asked it to.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that once the High Court, a constitutional court, was already seized of the same dispute and had passed its own order permitting construction, it was not appropriate for the NGT, a statutory tribunal subordinate to the High Court's territorial jurisdiction, to continue parallel proceedings on the same cause of action. Relying on L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and reiterating that orders of constitutional courts prevail over tribunal orders, the Court quashed the NGT proceedings and directed the parties to place all facts, including the expert committee's report, before the High Court for a fresh decision balancing development and environmental protection. Pending that, it allowed construction only on the area where the earlier structure had stood, and clarified it had expressed no opinion on the merits.

Lesson Learnt

When a High Court is already hearing a case on a particular subject matter, a statutory tribunal like the NGT should not proceed with parallel litigation on the same cause of action: orders of constitutional courts take precedence over tribunal orders, and conflicting directions from different forums must be avoided.

The State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru (M.P.) – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware