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.

Uncategorized (needs manual review)Supreme Court of India

B.B. Patel & Ors. vs. DLF Universal Ltd.

Civil AppealDecided 25 Jan 2022
Civil Appeal No. 1106 of 2009
L. Nageswara Rao · B.R. Gavai · B.V. Nagarathna · Nageswara Rao · Nagarathna

Background

The appellants had applied in 1993 to buy four flats in DLF's "Beverly Park-I" project in Gurgaon under a scheme allowing payment over 10 years, and an Apartment Buyer Agreement (ABA) was signed the same year. The appellants later complained to the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission alleging unfair trade practice by DLF (delay in possession, imposition of extra charges, and an one-sided/unconscionable agreement), but the Commission dismissed their complaint in 2009. The appellants challenged that dismissal before the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court upheld the Commission's finding that DLF had not committed any unfair trade practice, noting the appellants failed to point to any specific unconscionable clause in the ABA and that earlier consumer-law precedents about refund/compensation for builder delay were not applicable since the appellants here wanted possession without paying agreed dues. The Court held that the final relief granted need not strictly follow from the reasoning of the judgment, and, "in the interest of justice", directed DLF to hand over possession of the flats once the appellants paid a reduced lump sum of Rs. 25,00,000 per flat (instead of the much larger sum of over Rs. 31 lakh DLF had claimed as outstanding), within four weeks, with possession to follow within a week of payment.

Lesson Learnt

Even where a consumer/trade-practice complaint fails on the merits because no specific unfair or unconscionable clause is proved, a court can still mould a fair, practical settlement between the parties rather than leave a decades-old dispute over flat possession completely unresolved.

B.B. Patel & Ors. vs. DLF Universal Ltd. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware