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.

Arbitration & Commercial LawSupreme Court of India

The State of Odisha vs. M/S Panda Infraproject Limited

Civil AppealDecided 24 Feb 2022
Civil Appeal Nos. 1083-1084 of 2022
M.R. Shah · B.V. Nagarathna

Background

The respondent contractor built a flyover over a railway crossing in Bhubaneswar; during construction, a 10-metre slab collapsed, killing one person and injuring eleven others. A government inquiry blamed the contractor for faulty formwork design and inadequate safety measures, and after a show-cause notice and reply, the State permanently blacklisted the contractor from all future government work. The Orissa High Court quashed the blacklisting order, holding it was pre-decided and violated natural justice.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that issuing a show-cause notice after an inquiry report, and then deciding based on the report and the contractor's reply, does not make an order "pre-determined": a tentative view before proceedings begin is not the same as prejudgment, and the contractor had been given a real opportunity to respond. The Court also disapproved of the State's own guideline capping blacklisting purely by number of offences (3 years per offence), holding that the gravity of the incident, not just the offence count, should govern the period. Given the seriousness of the fatal accident, permanent debarment was inappropriate, so the Court restricted the blacklisting to five years instead.

Lesson Learnt

A blacklisting or debarment order survives natural-justice challenge if the affected party was given a genuine opportunity to respond to specific allegations before the final decision, but even a justified blacklisting must be proportionate in duration to the actual gravity of the wrongdoing, not open-ended or purely formulaic.

The State of Odisha vs. M/S Panda Infraproject Limited – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware