M/S Unique Shanti Developers LLP vs. Rajesh Vijay Dubey
Original PDF →Facts
The appellant, M/s. Unique Shanti Developers LLP, and the respondent, Rajesh Vijay Dubey, presented consent terms dated April 20, 2025, before the Bombay High Court. The parties, present in court with their advocates, sought to correct a typographical error in paragraph 11 of the consent terms, where 'petitioner' was mistakenly used instead of 'complainant'. Additionally, the respondent's advocate submitted an affidavit dated April 21, 2025, clarifying that the respondent (complainant) would bear the stamp duty, registration fees, and GST on the agreement for sale. The Court perused these documents.
Held
The Court held that the terms of the consent terms and the affidavit of the respondent were legal and valid. The assurances recorded in both documents were accepted as undertakings to the Court. Consequently, the Second Appeal was disposed of in terms of the consent terms. The Interim Application was disposed of as infructuous in view of the disposal of the Second Appeal. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided. The ratio is that consent terms, if legal and valid, and clarified appropriately, can be accepted as undertakings by the High Court to dispose of appeals.
Key Issues
1. Whether the consent terms presented by the appellant and respondent are legal and valid, and if the assurances therein can be accepted as undertakings to the Court. This issue arises from the parties' agreement and the Court's duty to ensure the legality of consent decrees. The appellant and respondent argued that the terms were legal and valid, and they sought the Court's acceptance of these terms as undertakings. The Court had to determine if the typographical correction and the clarification regarding GST payment were acceptable and if the overall agreement was enforceable. No specific provisions of GST law were directly debated, but the payment of GST was a point of clarification.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER:
Learned counsels for the parties have tendered consent terms dated 20th April 2025. The consent terms are signed by the partner of the appellant and his advocate. The consent terms are also signed by the respondent and his advocate. The signatories of the consent terms are present in the court.
Learned counsels for the parties submit that in paragraph 11 of the consent terms, there is a typographical error in mentioning the word ‘petitioner’ in place of ‘complainant’. The parties are therefore Page no. 1 of 2 varsha VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU VIJAY RAJGURU Date: 2025.04.22 13:31:55 +0530
7-sa-728-2024-ia-15978-2024.doc permitted to correct paragraph no.11 of the consent terms for replacing the word ‘petitioner’ with the word ‘complainant’.
Learned counsel for the respondent has tendered an affidavit dated 21st April 2025, clarifying that the stamp duty, registration fees and GST on the agreement for sale shall be paid by the respondent, i.e. the complainant. The affidavit is filed to clarify the terms and conditions agreed between the parties.
The corrected consent terms and the affidavit are taken on record and marked ‘X1’ and ‘X2’ respectively with today’s date for identification.
I have perused the terms of the consent terms and the affidavit of the respondent. The terms agreed between the parties are legal and valid. The assurances recorded in the consent terms and the affidavit are accepted as undertakings to this court.
Second appeal is disposed of in terms of consent terms. In view of disposal of the second appeal, the interim application is disposed of as infructuous. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 2 of 2
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.