Unique Shanti Developers LLP vs. Rajesh Vijay Dubey
Facts
This matter concerns a Second Appeal filed by M/s. Unique Shanti Developers LLP (the Appellant) against Rajesh Vijay Dubey (the Respondent). The parties have presented consent terms dated 20th April 2025, signed by both the Appellant's partner and the Respondent, along with their respective advocates. The signatories were present in court. A typographical error in paragraph 11 of the consent terms, where 'petitioner' was mistakenly used instead of 'complainant', was brought to the Court's attention. The parties were permitted to correct this. Additionally, the Respondent's advocate submitted an affidavit clarifying that the Respondent, as the complainant, would bear the stamp duty, registration fees, and GST on the agreement for sale. The Court found the terms legal and valid.
Held
The Court held that the terms of the consent terms and the affidavit of the respondent are legal and valid. The assurances recorded in the consent terms and the affidavit were accepted as undertakings to the Court. Consequently, the Second Appeal was disposed of in terms of the consent terms. The Interim Application, being dependent on the Second Appeal, was disposed of as infructuous. The Court found no reason to deviate from the parties' mutually agreed settlement, deeming it legally sound and binding.
Key Issues
1. Whether the consent terms presented by the parties are legal and valid, and if the assurances therein can be accepted as undertakings to the Court. This issue arises from the parties' agreement to resolve their dispute through consent terms. The Appellant and Respondent, through their counsel, argued that the terms are legal and valid and should be accepted. The Court needed to determine if these terms, including the allocation of GST payment, were legally sound and binding. 2. Whether the Second Appeal should be disposed of in terms of the agreed consent terms. This issue directly relates to the outcome of the appeal based on the parties' settlement. The parties' submission to the Court indicated their desire for the appeal to be decided based on the consent terms.
Sections Cited
GST
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
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.