Find the exact case law
in seconds, not hours.
AI-powered semantic search across Indian statutes, case laws, and tax rulings. Ask in plain English — get cited answers with AI‑generated summaries that CAs and lawyers actually trust.
State of Maharashtra v. Rajesh Sharma (2021)
The court held that mere breach of contractual obligation does not attract Section 420 IPC unless fraudulent intent at the inception of the transaction is established beyond reasonable doubt.
Key takeaway: Prosecution under S.420 requires proving dishonest intention existed at the time of making the promise — not after the fact. This narrows the scope of frivolous criminal complaints in commercial disputes.
Priya Constructions v. Union of India (2023)
Petitioner challenged denial of ITC under Section 16(4) of CGST Act. Court ruled that the time limit is directory, not mandatory, when the department itself delayed processing.
Agarwal Holdings Ltd. v. DCIT (2024)
Tribunal deleted addition of ₹4.2 Cr under Section 68, holding that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of share subscribers.
Trusted by professionals at
Everything you need to analyze law faster
Four tools that replace hours of manual research with instant, AI‑assisted answers grounded in real legal sources.
Find the exact case law you need — in seconds
Search 50,000+ Indian judgments in plain English. Our semantic engine understands legal context, not just keywords — so "cheating in property deals" finds S.420 IPC cases without you typing the section number.
State of Maharashtra v. Rajesh Sharma (2021)
Mere breach of contract does not attract S.420 IPC unless dishonest intention existed at inception.
Mehta Builders v. State of Maharashtra (2023)
Property sale agreements require proof of active concealment for fraud charges under S.420.
Read a 90-page judgment in 30 seconds
Every case broken into holding, ratio, key facts, and implications — with citations intact so you can quote directly.
S.420 IPC requires proof of dishonest intent at the time of making the promise — subsequent failure alone is insufficient.
"Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown to have existed at the very inception."
Commercial disputes should be resolved in civil courts; S.420 cannot be used as a pressure tactic in contract disputes.
Never miss a compliance update again
Real-time alerts on amendments, circulars, and notifications across Income Tax, GST, Companies Act, and SEBI.
GST Circular 228/2024
NEWITC reversal rules for FY 2024-25 amended — Rule 37A inserted
2 hours ago
Income Tax Notification No. 43/2024
Section 87A rebate limit revised to ₹12,500 for AY 2025-26
1 day ago
Companies Act — MCA Update
Annual filing deadline extended to 31st Dec 2024 for LLPs
3 days ago
Navigate connected laws like never before
Every case links to related rulings, parent sections, and cited precedents. One click reveals the full legal context around any judgment.
Source Section
Section 420, IPC
Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property
S.415 IPC
Definition of Cheating
S.468 IPC
Forgery for purpose of Cheating
S.120B IPC
Criminal Conspiracy
S.34 IPC
Acts done by several persons
From query to insight in seconds
Type a legal question. Watch AI do the rest — live.
Waiting for query…
State of Maharashtra v. Rajesh Sharma (2021)
Mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating under S.420 IPC. The prosecution must establish that fraudulent or dishonest intention existed at the very inception of the promise, not merely upon subsequent failure to perform.
Mehta Builders v. State of Maharashtra (2023)
Gupta Real Estate v. CBI (2022)
Related Sections
Results will appear here
That's it. No training needed. No complex setup.
Try It Yourself — FreeLegal Intelligence
Real-time rulings, amendments, and circulars — curated for legal professionals.
Supreme Court strikes down retrospective tax demand on foreign mergers — landmark ruling under Article 265
In a unanimous 5-judge bench decision, the Court held that tax authorities cannot impose retrospective liability on cross-border corporate restructurings without explicit statutory mandate. The ruling impacts over ₹8,700 Cr in pending tax disputes and sets a strong precedent for treaty-based investments in India.
CBIC issues clarification on ITC reversal for exempt supplies — Circular 229/2026
Delhi HC quashes FIR under S.420 IPC in SaaS subscription dispute — civil remedy preferred
CBDT extends ITR filing deadline for AY 2026-27 to August 31 for individuals
SEBI mandates AI disclosure framework for algorithmic trading firms — effective July 2026
RBI tightens KYC norms for fintech lending platforms — 90-day compliance window
MCA notifies simplified Form AOC-4 for small companies under ₹2 Cr turnover
Bombay HC rules on maintainability of writ petition challenging GST assessment orders
MahaRERA imposes ₹50L penalty on builder for delayed possession beyond RERA timeline
24
Updates today
5
Major rulings
< 1hr
Update latency
12
Domains covered
Used by legal teams across India
From solo practitioners to Big Law — 2,500+ professionals trust The Legal Grid for research, compliance, and daily legal intelligence.
“During the last GST audit season, The Legal Grid saved our team over 100 hours. The compliance tracker caught a CBIC circular amendment we would have completely missed — it directly prevented a ₹12 lakh penalty for one of our largest clients. This isn't just a research tool, it's become essential infrastructure for our practice.”
Prevented ₹12L penalty
Caught critical CBIC amendment
Priya Mehta
Tax Consultant & Chartered Accountant
Mehta & Associates, Mumbai
Amit Sharma
Senior Advocate, Delhi HC
“Case research that took me 3–4 hours now takes under 10 minutes. The AI summaries capture ratio decidendi accurately — rare for legal AI.”
0+
Legal professionals
0K+
Judgments indexed
0M+
Searches processed
0%
Uptime SLA
Professionals from these organizations use The Legal Grid
Start finding case law
in seconds
Type your query. Get precise legal insights instantly. No setup, no credit card, no learning curve.
2,500+ professionals
already use The Legal Grid daily
“Setup took 2 minutes. Found a Supreme Court ruling on my first search that would have taken me hours on SCC/Manupatra.”
Amit Sharma · Senior Advocate, Delhi HC
Request a Demo
Get set up in under 5 minutes