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.

Consumer RightsSupreme Court of India

Rohit Chaudhary & Anr. vs. M/S Vipul Ltd.

Civil Appeal · 2023 INSC 807Decided 6 Sept 2023
Civil Appeal No. 5858 of 2015
S. Ravindra Bhat · Aravind Kumar

Background

The appellants bought a commercial office unit from a builder (Vipul Ltd.) for their self-employment and livelihood, but the builder later unilaterally shifted their allotment to a different floor and unit, and then failed to hand over possession even after the agreed 24-month period expired. When the appellants sought a refund with interest and compensation from the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the Commission dismissed their complaint at the threshold, holding they were not "consumers" under the Act because one appellant was also engaged in a separate investment/property-dealing business.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that being engaged in one line of business does not automatically disqualify a person from being a "consumer" in an unrelated transaction: what matters is the specific purpose behind the specific purchase in question. Since the appellants had explicitly stated in their complaint that they sought the office space for self-employment and livelihood, and nothing in the record contradicted this, the National Commission's finding was erroneous. The Court declined to remit the matter given how old the dispute was, and instead directly ordered the builder to refund the amount received (Rs. 51,10,117) with 12% annual interest plus litigation costs, since the appellants had already repudiated the contract.

Lesson Learnt

A person is not automatically excluded from consumer protection just because they also run some other business. Courts must look at the specific purpose of the specific purchase, and if it was for the buyer's own livelihood or self-employment, consumer protection remedies remain available.

Rohit Chaudhary & Anr. vs. M/S Vipul Ltd. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware