Analysis of Non-Compliance with Settlement Agreement

Explore the court’s in-depth legal analysis of a case centering on non-compliance with a settlement agreement. The focus is on understanding the obligations outlined in the agreement and the consequences of failing to adhere to them. Dive into the complexities of enforcing compliance within the legal system and the implications of disregarding the terms of a formal settlement.


  • Triveni Ferrous Infrastructure Private Limited (TFIPL) was a joint venture company between the Seth Group and the Mittal Group.
  • TFIPL acquired land at Sector 70 and 48.05 acres of land at Sector 89, Faridabad, and obtained licenses for development.
  • The disputes between the Seth and Mittal Groups regarding payment of liabilities led to various litigations, including Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 5/2015 and No. 11/2015.
  • A Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) dated 4.5.2015 was executed between the Seth Group, Mittal Group, and TFIPL to resolve the disputes.
  • The development rights in Sector 89 land, parcel of 48.03 acres belonging to TIFPL, were divided and sold among TFIPL, Mittal Group, and Seth Group.
  • The contempt petitions No. 34/2016, No. 257/2016, and No. 889/2017 were filed by the concerned parties due to non-compliance of the order passed by the Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 5/2015.
  • The obligations of the Seth Group and the Mittal Group under the MOS and the court order were specified.
  • The Seth Group’s obligations included various payments to TFIPL/Mittal Group, license renewal fee payment, bank guarantees for EDC and IDW performance, consultancy charges, and transfer of shares.
  • The total financial commitment of the Seth Group under the MOS was outlined.
  • It was stated that the Seth Group was willing to fulfill their obligations as long as the Mittal Group also fulfilled their obligations as per the MOS and court order.

Also Read: Transfer of Writ Petitions for Chartered Accountants’ Tax Audit Guidelines


  • The Mittal Group applied for renewal of license without any intention to actually renew it and without complying with any conditions.
  • The Seth Group failed to honor their obligation under the MOS and is attempting to create excuses for not paying EDC liability.
  • The NOC requested by TFIPL/Mittal Group was rejected by the DGTCP, showing lack of compliance.
  • The Seth Group is accused of malafides for wanting license bifurcation but not honoring EDC liability division.
  • The change of beneficial interest was approved by RERA, with no stay order.
  • Seth Group claims they have not made the EDC liability payment as per the MoS and could face prosecution.
  • It was the Mittal Group’s responsibility to renew the license under clause 17 of the MOS.
  • TFIPL was supposed to delineate Seth Group’s share in the land, but has not done so.
  • The NOC issued by TFIPL/Mittal Group had contrary conditions and was not in the required format.
  • Seth Group undertook to pay a portion of the EDC charges, while Mittal Group failed to pay their share, leading to license renewal rejection.
  • Mittal Group and TFIPL are accused of deliberate non-compliance with the MOS, rendering them potentially liable under the Contempt of Courts Act.
  • I. The Seth Group argues that non-compliance of obligations by the Mittal Group has hindered the intent of the Memorandum of Settlement (MoS).
  • The Mittal Group failed to fulfill its obligations under the MoS, leading to a lack of severance between the Seth Group and the Mittal Group as intended.
  • The Seth Group paid a significant amount towards EDC liability, but the Mittal Group did not contribute their share or provide necessary documents for license renewal, impacting the Seth Group’s ability to benefit from the EDC Relief Policy.
  • The Seth Group’s inability to handover possession to flat owners and utilize unsold stock is attributed to the Mittal Group’s non-compliance with license renewal and bifurcation requirements.
  • The MoS settlement has been rendered ineffective due to Mittal Group’s actions, causing financial losses to the Seth Group and hindering the intended objectives of the agreement.

Also Read: Analyzing Interference with Acquittal in Legal Conviction Case


  • The Seth Group alleged that the Mittal Group failed to comply with obligations stated in the Memorandum of Settlement (MoS) dated 4.5.2015.
  • The MoS required fulfillment of specific obligations by both parties, which the Seth Group claims they have fulfilled but the Mittal Group has not.
  • The disputes between the parties culminated in the MoS dated 4.5.2015, which was subsequently made into a court order.
  • The Seth Group argues that the Mittal Group’s non-compliance with the MoS terms was willful and intentional.
  • Certain obligations, such as payment of EDC liabilities, joint application for license renewal, and issuance of necessary resolutions, were highlighted as unfulfilled by the Mittal Group.
  • The Seth Group insists that the MoS terms must be adhered to by all parties involved, and any deviation from these terms is considered non-compliance.
  • RERA’s (Real Estate Regulatory Authority) order dated 01.10.2019 was mentioned as an important development that impacted the contempt petition proceedings.
  • The Seth Group’s stance is to enforce the MoS terms and seek compliance by the Mittal Group, emphasizing the need for all parties to fulfill their obligations as per the settlement agreement.
  • Mittal Group retired from the Directorship of TFIPL
  • Balance sheet being signed by proxies since Mittal Group’s retirement
  • Seth Group potentially not deposited balance amount of EDC liability
  • Mittal Group has not fulfilled obligations
  • Clause 5.8 prevents Mittal Group from resigning as Directors or transferring majority shares in TFIPL until license renewal

Also Read: Judicial Review on Sentence and Compensation in Criminal Case


  • The Court referred the matter to mediation on 09.02.2015 to facilitate a negotiated settlement.
  • Contempt Petition (C) No 257 of 2016 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 889 of 2017 were dismissed.
  • Contempt Petition (C) No.34/2016 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No 5 of 2015 to be listed after three months.
  • Respondents were given two months to fulfill their obligations under the MoS dated 04.05.2015, including payment of EDC liability and renewing licenses.
  • Failure to complete obligations within two months may result in further orders under the Contempt of Courts Act.
  • The Seth Group fulfilled most obligations except for the payment of Rs.25.27 crores to DTCP as per MoS.
  • The Mittal Group in Contempt Petition No 34 of 2016 failed to fulfill obligations, rendering themselves liable for action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
  • All parties to the MoS are expected to fulfill their respective obligations.

Case Title: ASHISH SETH Vs. SUMIT MITTAL (2020 INSC 361)

Case Number: CONMT.PET.(C) No.-000034-000034 / 2016

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *