A settlement agreement made through mediation can be enforced as if it were a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure, leading to joint and several liability for non-compliance with its terms.

JUDGMENT

02.09.2024

1. The petitioners in each of these execution petitions seek execution and enforcement of a Settlement Agreement drawn up amongst the petitioner(s), Respondent 1 and Respondent 2. Respondent 2, in each of these petitions is M/s. ATS Infrastructure Ltd, “ATS”,hereinafter. In OMP (Enf) (Comm) 148/2021, OMP (Enf) (Comm) 149/2021 and OMP (Enf) (Comm) 174/2021, Respondent 1 is M/s Almond Infrabuild Pvt Ltd, “AlmondInfrabuild”,hereinafter whereas in OMP(Enf)(COMM) 10/2022, OMP(Enf)(COMM) 168/2021, OMP(Enf) (COMM) 172/2021 and OMP(Enf)(COMM) 9/2022, Respondent 1 is Anand Divine Developers Pvt Ltd, “AnandDivineDevelopers”,hereinafter. Almond Infrabuild and Anand Divine Developers are wholly owned subsidiaries of ATS.

2. In each of these petitions, the disputes between the parties were referred to mediation by the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, “theMediationCentre”, under whose aegis Settlement Agreements were drawn up, settling the disputes. These petitions seek enforcement of the said Settlement Agreements.

3. The terms of the Settlement Agreements are identical. As such, the issues arising for consideration in these enforcement petitions are also identical. For the sake of convenience, this judgment makes reference to the parties in OMP (Enf) (Comm) 148/2021, namely Anand Gupta and his wife, Anuradha Vinod Gupta as the petitioners, Almond Infrabuild as Respondent 1 and ATS as Respondent 2.

Facts

4. Before adverting to the Settlement Agreements of which enforcement is sought, a brief recital of the facts which led up to this Execution Petition is necessary.

5. In 2014, the respondents launched a Group Housing Residential Project under the name “ATS Tourmaline”. The project was in the nature of a guaranteed buyback and subvention scheme. Each investor who invested in the project are allotted a residential unit. On the expiry of 33 to 36 months from the date of investment, an investor had an option to exit the project by selling the residential unit back to Respondent 1 at a price of ₹ 1,500/- per sq. ft. over and above the booking price of ₹ 8,000/- per sq. ft. Respondent 1, as the developer, therefore, agreed to buy back the residential unit at the said terms.

6. The petitioners invested in the project, consequent to which a Memorandum of Understanding, “MOU”,hereinafter was executed among Respondent 1 and the petitioners on 26 March 2014. Clause 8 of the MOU incorporated the terms of the Buyback and Subvention Scheme and read thus:

“8. It is hereby agreed by the parties that the Purchaser/Investor, within a time frame of 33 months from date of booking to 36 months from the date of booking, shall be entitled to call upon the Owner/Developer in writing, to purchase the aforesaid Apartment at the Basic Sale Price of ₹ 9,500/- per square feet plus service tax paid till date by the Purchaser/investor and in such a case the Owner/Developer shall repurchase the said Apartment within 30 days of expiry of 36 months from the date of booking. The Purchaser/Investor will execute the necessary documents to surrender the allotted units in favour of the Owner/Developer upon receipt of payment. The Purchaser/Investor shall execute such necessary deeds, documents in favour of Owner/Developer for the surrender of the said Apartment by the Purchaser/investor to Owner/Developer and the payment of repurchase price is subject to applicable tax laws. In case of delay in making the payment of repurchase price by the Owner/Developer to the Purchaser/Developer beyond 30 days, the Owner/Developer shall be liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum for the p