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

Vishal Ashwin Patel vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 25(3) & Ors.

Civil AppealDecided 28 Mar 2022
Civil Appeal No. 2200 of 2022
M.R. Shah · B.V. Nagarathna

Background

Vishal Ashwin Patel and three other individuals had filed writ petitions before the Bombay High Court challenging the reopening of their income tax assessments under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, raising several specific grounds. The High Court's Division Bench dismissed all four writ petitions with brief, one-line orders such as "we are not inclined to entertain this petition," without engaging with or discussing any of the grounds raised. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had failed in its duty to give reasons.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found the High Court's orders to be "cryptic, non-speaking and non-reasoned," noting that none of the multiple grounds raised in the writ petitions had been considered or discussed at all. Relying on its own precedents (Central Board of Trustees vs Indore Composite and Union Public Service Commission vs Bibhu Prasad Sarangi), the Court reiterated that reasons are the "soul of judicial decision" and that a court exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 must independently examine the issues raised and record a reasoned finding, since an unreasoned order deprives parties of knowing why they won or lost. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the tax dispute itself, the Court set aside the High Court's orders and sent all four writ petitions back for a fresh, reasoned decision.

Lesson Learnt

Courts deciding a writ petition must actually engage with and give reasons addressing the grounds raised by a party: a bare, unexplained refusal to entertain a petition is itself a legal defect that can be struck down, regardless of who might ultimately be right on the underlying dispute.

Vishal Ashwin Patel vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 25(3) & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware