The High Court of Judicature at Bombay on January 28, 2026, officially recorded and adopted the consent terms settling a complex civil suit between the real estate entity Lodha Developers Ltd. and the family of Rajendra Narpatmal Lodha. Justice Milind N. Jadhav presided over the proceedings, formally marking the conclusion of the litigation through a court-approved settlement that addressed all outstanding claims between the parties. The resolution involves two distinct sets of consent terms, which were taken on record after legal representatives confirmed the intent of the signatories.

Under the terms of the judicial order, the court accepted the settlement as a binding decree , effectively disposing of the suit and the associated interim applications . The settlement is divided into two parts: one set of terms, marked as ‘X’, covers the agreement between the plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, while the second set, marked ‘X-1’, governs the agreement with Defendant No. 4. The documents, spanning 30 pages and 22 pages respectively, represent a comprehensive effort to resolve the wide-ranging disputes that had previously embroiled the company and the family of its former promoter. During the hearing, the court noted that the "Parties have confirmed that they have signed these Consent Terms on their own free will without any fraud or coercion ."

Contested Validity and Allegations of Coercion

Despite the judicial recording of the settlement, the aftermath has been defined by significant legal friction. The defendants have since approached the High Court with an interim application seeking to set aside the consent decree. The applicants argue that the documents were executed under extreme duress and that the consent obtained was not voluntary. Central to these allegations is the claim that Rajendra Lodha was in police custody during the time the terms were finalized, raising concerns regarding the environment in which the legal documents were signed.

The application further alleges that the settlement is underpinned by what the defendants describe as "draconian" provisions. The plaintiffs, according to the challenge, included a breach clause that would trigger the release of escrow documents, which allegedly contained self-incriminating confessions to false criminal charges. The applicants claim that these documents were obtained through "egregious levels of coercion." The legal challenge highlights that, as part of the settlement, the family was required to relinquish control over assets valued at approximately ₹4,000 crore. Additionally, the terms purportedly included strict restrictive covenants, including a 15-year ban on the family from engaging in real estate activities outside of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, and a seven-year prohibition against entering or remaining in Maharashtra.

Criminal Allegations and Procedural Complexity

The origins of this dispute trace back to September 2025, when Rajendra Lodha was arrested following an FIR registered at the NM Joshi Marg Police Station. The complaint alleged that the defendants had cheated Lodha Developers of approximately ₹85 crore through various irregular land transactions, including the undervaluation of company-owned properties and issues involving Transferable Development Rights (TDR). The case was later transferred to the DCB, CID, Unit – Property Cell, Mumbai, for further investigation.

The defendants’ current legal challenge asserts that the company’s management, specifically Managing Director and CEO Abhishek Mangal Prabhat Lodha, utilized their position to exert pressure on the family during this period of legal vulnerability. The applicants argue that the consent terms were a result of these coercive efforts, designed to force the family out of the company’s shareholding structure and to limit their business footprint.

The court’s January order emphasized the finality of the settlement, noting that the "Suit is decreed in terms of the Consent Terms ." Justice Jadhav further ordered that the " undertaking given by the parties in the Consent Terms are recorded and accepted as undertakings given to this Court." Consequently, the registry was directed to draw up a formal decree, and the court dispensed with the sealing of the drawn-up document to expedite the process.

Ongoing Legal Battles

The situation remains fluid, as the parties continue to clash over the aftermath of the decree. The applicants have alleged that, notwithstanding the existence of the consent terms, the company continued to initiate further criminal proceedings, including a fresh complaint filed on February 3, 2026. Furthermore, another FIR was registered against members of the family at the same police station on October 22, 2026, which the defendants contend is a direct breach of the spirit and letter of the court-approved settlement.

The current legal landscape involves a pending interim application that seeks to undo the effects of the January 2026 decree. The matter has been assigned to Justice Arif Doctor, who has provided a timeline for the completion of pleadings to address the allegations of coercion and undue influence. As the court prepares to delve into the circumstances surrounding the execution of the 52 pages of consent terms, the validity of the ₹4,000 crore asset transfer remains the primary point of contention. The court’s role, which began with the formal recognition of a settlement, has now shifted toward determining whether the requirements of free consent were met during the high-stakes negotiations that occurred while a principal party was in state custody. The proceedings are expected to continue as both sides present evidence regarding the legitimacy of the signatures and the pressure allegedly applied to secure the agreement.