A Gurgaon court dismissed real estate developer MGF's plea against a compromise agreement between M3M and a land-owning company. The May 27 order ruled that MGF lacked standing as it was never the land's owner or possessor. MGF's 2022 lawsuit sought to challenge a 2016 compromise deed and Lok Adalat award, claiming dishonoured cheques invalidated the agreement. However, the court highlighted MGF's delayed filing beyond the statute of limitations. The court reaffirmed the validity of the original compromise decree and exchange deeds, upheld by multiple courts, emphasising the importance of timely legal actions and proper standing in civil litigation.
A Gurgaon court has recently dismissed a plea filed by real estate developer MGF, which contested a compromise agreement between another real estate developer, M3M, and a land-owning company. In an order dated May 27, the court ruled that MGF lacked the standing to challenge the agreement as it was never the owner or in possession of the disputed land. According to the court's decision, the original agreement that led to the compromise decree has been fully adhered to.
MGF had initiated a civil lawsuit in 2022 to challenge a compromise deed and a Lok Adalat award from 2016. However, the court noted that MGF had no grounds to seek the annulment of the compromise and consent decree since MGF was not a party to the agreement in question. Therefore, MGF had no legitimate right to request the setting aside of the compromise and consent decree.
The court's findings clarified that MGF was never the owner of the land. The land-owning companies associated with Emaar were always in ownership and possession of the land. The court order explained that through exchange deeds and a compromise decree in 2016, all rights, titles, and interests in the land were transferred by the land-owning companies to Cosmo Propbuild and other M3M entities. The validity of the Lok Adalat award, which was based on the compromise decree and exchange deeds, had been previously upheld by multiple courts, including the trial court, executing court, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
MGF's argument that the compromise deed, exchange deeds, and Lok Adalat award should be automatically nullified due to the dishonouring of cheques was also addressed by the court. The cheques in question were dishonoured in 2018, but MGF did not file the lawsuit until 2022. The court pointed out that the suit was therefore barred by the statute of limitations.
The dismissal of MGF's plea reaffirms the legal standing of the compromise decree and the related exchange deeds. The court's decision highlights the consistent upholding of the Lok Adalat award by various judicial bodies. This case emphasises the importance of timely legal action and the adherence to statutes of limitations in civil litigation.
In summary, the Gurgaon court's ruling indicates that MGF had no legitimate claim to challenge the compromise and consent decree, as it was never an owner or possessor of the land in dispute. The legal processes and agreements between the land-owning companies and M3M entities have been validated through multiple court decisions, and the delay in filing the lawsuit further weakened MGF's position. This case serves as a reminder of the critical role of proper legal standing and timely action in upholding the integrity of judicial agreements and decrees.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
