Memorandum of Understanding - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Land Deal Fraud Case Citing Civil Settlement

21Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Land Deal Fraud Case Citing Civil Settlement

In this judgment, the Supreme Court exercised its plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash criminal proceedings solely against the appellant, based on a full and final settlement between the private parties. The Court clarified that such quashing would not impede the prosecution of other accused, who must be pursued independently. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a dispute over the sale of a plot of land in Burari, Delhi. Respondent No. 2, while searching for land to build a house, was introduced by the appellant, Mool Chand, who claimed to be a reputed real estate agent. The appellant represented that he had an encumbrance-free plot suitable for the complainant, owned by his associate, accused No. 2, who needed urgent funds. Consequently,...

Homebuyer Alert: Supreme Court Clarifies When a Real Estate Investment Becomes “Speculative”

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies the distinction between genuine homebuyers and speculative investors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It holds that allottees with agreements structured for assured returns or buy-back clauses, without a genuine intent to possess the property, are speculative investors. Such investors are barred from initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 7 of the IBC, as the Code is not a recovery mechanism for speculative investments. Facts Of The Case: This case consolidates four civil appeals concerning the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against real estate developers by individual allottees. The primary appellant, Mansi Brar Fernandes, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Gay...

Supreme Court Reins In Judicial Intervention in Arbitration After Appointment

This Supreme Court judgment holds that a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement has no legal right to be present in the arbitral proceedings as the award would not bind them, violating the confidentiality mandate under Section 42A. Furthermore, a court becomes functus officio after appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and cannot entertain subsequent applications for intervention or issue ancillary directions. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an oral family settlement between Pawan Gupta (PG) and Kamal Gupta (KG), later recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding/Family Settlement Deed (MoU/FSD) dated 09.07.2019, which was not signed by KG’s son, Rahul Gupta (RG). PG initiated proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Arbitra...