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

Topline Shoes Limited and Another vs. Punjab National Bank

Civil AppealDecided 20 Jul 2022
Civil Appeal No. 2125 of 2009
B.R. Gavai · Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Background

Punjab National Bank filed a recovery application against Topline Shoes Ltd. before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Mumbai, and the company filed a counter-claim alleging that money it had deposited with the Bank in 1994 had been illegally withheld and extracted from it under undue influence. The DRT dismissed both the Bank's claim and the company's counter-claim, holding the counter-claim was time-barred; the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and later the Bombay High Court upheld this. The company appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the more generous three-year limitation period under Article 22 of the Limitation Act (running from the date of its 1999 notice) should apply, rather than Article 113's residual period.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided while ignoring the underlying facts. It noted the DRT's finding that the company had, as a "conscious decision" by its own Board, chosen in 1994 to pay the disputed amount without contesting it (to protect its business relationships and future loans), and had only issued a demand notice five years later, in 1999. Since the claim arose from the 1994 payment and not from the 1999 notice, the Court agreed with the DRT, DRAT and High Court that the residual Article 113 (not Article 22) period applied, meaning the counter-claim was correctly held time-barred, and dismissed the appeal.

Lesson Learnt

The limitation clock for recovering money you claim was wrongly taken from you generally starts running from when the cause of action actually arose (here, the original payment), not from whenever you later choose to send a demand notice, delaying action does not restart the limitation period.

Topline Shoes Limited and Another vs. Punjab National Bank – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware