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.

Civil Property & InheritanceSupreme Court of India

Bangalore Development Authority vs. R. Jayakumar & Ors.

Civil AppealDecided 9 Mar 2022
Civil Appeal Nos. 3628-3960 of 2004
Sanjiv Khanna · Bela M. Trivedi

Background

Applicants who had registered for residential plots under a 1988 notification later opted into a second, later 1988 notification with different terms after the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) couldn't allot sites under the first one. When the BDA subsequently could not deliver the specific sites promised under the second notification either, it allotted alternative sites in 1997-98 at a different price, prompting about 168 applicants to challenge this before the High Court. A Single Judge dismissed their challenge, but a Division Bench reversed him, relying on an earlier unrelated case (E.R. Manjaiah) to rule in the applicants' favour.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held the Division Bench was wrong to mechanically apply the E.R. Manjaiah precedent, because the facts were materially different, in that earlier case, allottees had already received firm allotment letters under one notification, whereas here the respondents had knowingly opted into the second notification, which only offered "proposed" sites and explicitly reserved the BDA's right to substitute sites from any future layout. Having voluntarily accepted those terms, the respondents could not later object to being allotted equivalent, non-discriminatory sites at the same price applicable to everyone under that notification. The Court restored the original decisions favouring the BDA, while giving the remaining respondents a fresh window to pay the enhanced site value with interest if they still wished to keep their allotted plots.

Lesson Learnt

When you voluntarily accept the terms and conditions of a scheme or notification, especially one that reserves flexibility for the other side, you generally cannot later invoke a more favourable precedent decided under a different scheme's different terms.

Bangalore Development Authority vs. R. Jayakumar & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware