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

Rohit Kochhar vs. Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd. & Ors.

Not available · 2024 INSC 920Decided 26 Nov 2024
Not available
Justice J.B. Pardiwala · Justice R. Mahadevan

Background

Rohit Kochhar had agreed to buy commercial space in a hotel and commercial complex in Gurgaon from Vipul Infrastructure and others, and sued for specific performance of that agreement (i.e., to force the sale through) in the Delhi High Court, since the developers were based in Delhi. The developers argued Delhi courts had no jurisdiction since the property itself was located in Gurgaon. A single judge of the Delhi High Court initially agreed to hear the case, but a Division Bench on appeal reversed this and ordered the case be filed in the court with jurisdiction over Gurgaon instead.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court agreed with the Division Bench and dismissed Kochhar's petitions. Under Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, suits related to immovable property must generally be filed where the property is located, unless the relief sought can be obtained entirely through the "personal obedience" of the defendant (i.e., without needing to deal with the property itself). Here, since honoring the contract would ultimately require executing and registering a sale deed in Gurgaon, not Delhi, the Court held that the Delhi courts could not entirely grant the relief through the defendants' personal obedience alone, so the proviso allowing suits at the defendant's location did not apply. The suit had to be filed in the Gurgaon courts.

Lesson Learnt

In property disputes, a buyer generally must sue for specific performance in the courts where the property is situated, even if the seller/developer is based elsewhere: the location of the immovable property, not the parties, usually determines which court has jurisdiction.

Rohit Kochhar vs. Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd. & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware