status quo order - The Legal Chamber

Moratorium Doesn’t Protect Inaction: Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Defaulting Developer’s Agreement

14Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Moratorium Doesn’t Protect Inaction: Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Defaulting Developer’s Agreement

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that validly terminated contracts do not constitute "assets" of a corporate debtor under the IBC, and its moratorium does not revive extinguished rights. It reaffirms that NCLT cannot interfere with terminations based on pre-existing, non-insolvency-related defaults. Furthermore, High Courts retain constitutional jurisdiction to direct statutory authorities, even during moratorium. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from a 2005 Development Agreement between Kher Nagar Sukhsadan Co-operative Housing Society and developer AA Estates for redevelopment of a dilapidated Mumbai building declared dangerous under municipal laws. The agreement required completion within 24 months, but the developer failed to meet this timeline. A Supple...

Supreme Court Revives Forgery Case: Fake Stamp Paper Probe Must Go On

The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate's referral under Section 156(3) CrPC for police investigation is justified when a complaint discloses a cognizable offence and such a direction is conducive to justice. The High Court's orders quashing the referral were set aside, emphasizing that the police must be allowed to investigate prima facie allegations of forgery and fabrication of documents. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Sadiq B. Hanchinmani, filed a civil suit claiming ownership of a property via an oral gift from his father, challenging a registered sale deed in favour of accused No. 1, Veena. The suit was dismissed in 2013. During the pendency of his appeal (RFA No. 4095/2013) before the High Court, a status quo order on the property's title and possession was initially granted b...

Mandatory Rules for Ex-Parte Injunctions: A Key Reminder from the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court emphasized that Order 39 Rule 3 CPC mandates recording reasons for granting ex parte injunction and strict compliance with procedural obligations by the applicant. Non-compliance warrants vacation of the ex parte order without adjudicating merits, ensuring the opposite party is not deprived of an early hearing. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited, filed a civil suit claiming ownership and possession of certain land parcels in District Barabanki, based on an Agreement to Sell from 2015 and a subsequent Sale Deed from April 2025. The plaintiff alleged that peaceful physical possession was handed over in 2015 upon full payment, after which they developed the land with significant investment. The Civil Judge (Senior Division...