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

Union of India Etc. vs. The United Planters Association of Southern India Etc. Etc.

Transfer Petition (Civil)Decided 11 Jul 2022
Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos. 884-895 of 2016
Dinesh Maheshwari · Vikram Nath

Background

The Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015 raised the salary limit for coverage under the Payment of Bonus Act and changed how bonus is calculated, with retrospective effect from 2014. More than 140 writ petitions challenging the validity of these amendments were filed across roughly 18 High Courts, with some High Courts granting differing interim reliefs. The Union of India sought to have all these writ petitions transferred to the Supreme Court to avoid the risk of conflicting decisions from different High Courts.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court declined to transfer the writ petitions either to itself or to a single High Court. It reasoned that because the bonus calculation is linked to state-specific minimum wage notifications, the issues involved genuinely vary from state to state, so it made more sense for each jurisdictional High Court to decide the matter with reference to its own facts and applicable state notifications. The Court also noted that the mere possibility of divergent views among High Courts is not, by itself, sufficient ground for transfer, relying on its own recent precedent declining a similar transfer request. All the interim stay orders passed by the respective High Courts were vacated, and the parties were left free to seek expeditious hearings in their own High Courts.

Lesson Learnt

The Supreme Court will not automatically centralize litigation raising a common legal question merely because many courts are hearing similar cases; if the underlying facts (such as state-specific rules) genuinely differ, it is often better for cases to be decided locally by the jurisdictional courts, preserving each litigant's normal right of appeal.

Union of India Etc. vs. The United Planters Association of Southern India Etc. Etc. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware