Pawan Kumar Arya & Ors. v. Ravi Kumar Arya & Ors.
Background
Two groups within the Arya family ("PA Group" and "RA Group", two brothers and their families) were locked in a dispute over a Worli, Mumbai redevelopment property owned through a company, Kash Foods. They settled the dispute via court-recorded consent terms in 2015, under which PA Group was to receive 8 flats and RA Group 7 flats, with further "supplemental consent terms" to be worked out for other family matters. The developer issued the allotment letter for PA Group's 8 flats, but RA Group refused to counter-sign it, saying nothing was final until the supplemental consent terms were also executed. The Bombay High Court's Single Judge and Division Bench both refused to enforce the letter in PA Group's favour.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that while a consent decree generally must be implemented as a whole, the specific allocation of 8 flats to PA Group under the consent terms was not disputed by anyone, including the developer, and could not be indefinitely withheld. It directed RA Group to counter-sign the allotment letter within two weeks, but with the condition that PA Group could not sell or transfer those flats until the broader supplemental consent terms/family settlement (covering other group companies) was finalised by both sides within four months. The appeals were disposed of with these modified directions and no order as to costs.
Lesson Learnt
Courts will enforce the parts of a family settlement that are clearly and finally agreed, even while other connected issues remain to be worked out, but they can also attach conditions (like restraining a further transfer) to make sure the overall settlement is not undermined by only partially honouring it.