Recovery of Money - 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,...

Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation Issues

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court held that the underlying claim for recovery of money was hopelessly barred by limitation, rendering the appointment of an arbitrator untenable in law. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a dispute arising from a partnership deed containing an arbitration clause. The petitioner, residing in the UK, entered into a partnership with the respondent on 20.09.2014, succeeding an earlier partnership involving the petitioner’s sister. The petitioner alleged that he paid substantial sums amounting to Rs. 2.31 crores, relying on a clause entitling him to 75% of profits from a property purchased on 04.05.2016, but received nothing. The partnership wa...

Supreme Court: Right to Cross-Examine Survives Even If Written Statement Is Not Filed

The Supreme Court held that the mandatory 120-day period for filing a written statement in a commercial suit was extended by its COVID-19 limitation orders. Crucially, it ruled that even if a written statement is not filed, the defendant’s fundamental right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses is not forfeited, as procedural rules must serve substantive justice. Facts Of The Case: In 2019, M/s Anvita Auto Tech Works Pvt. Ltd. appointed M/s Aroush Motors as a dealer for CFMOTO motorcycles. The plaintiff invested significant sums in security deposits, showroom setup, and initial stock. The business was disrupted when a government ban on BS-IV vehicles took effect in April 2020, and the defendant failed to supply promised upgrade kits. Consequently, the plaintiff terminated the dealer...