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

P. Chandrika vs The Commissioner, Commissioner of Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax and Anr.

Diary No.Decided 15 Mar 2022
Diary No. 4058 of 2022
Uday Umesh Lalit · S. Ravindra Bhat · Hrishikesh Roy · U.U. Lalit along with Justices S. Ravindra Bhat

Background

In proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, the government had taken possession of P. Chandrika's excess urban land before the Act was repealed. Her writ petition challenging this was rejected by a Division Bench of the High Court, and her subsequent Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court was also dismissed. She then filed a review petition asking the Supreme Court to reconsider its dismissal.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the review petition but rejected her request for an open-court hearing, and after examining the review petition and its grounds, found no error apparent on the face of the record that would justify reopening the earlier decision. Since possession of the excess land had already been taken over by the government before the Repeal Act came into force, the original claim was rightly found to be without substance. The review petition was accordingly dismissed, leaving the earlier dismissal of her case undisturbed.

Lesson Learnt

A review petition is not a second chance to re-argue a case on its merits. It succeeds only when there is a clear, self-evident error in the original order, and once land has already been taken over by the government before a repealing law comes into force, a later challenge based on that repeal is unlikely to succeed.

P. Chandrika vs The Commissioner, Commissioner of Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax and Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware