Delhi High Court

Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to adjudicate disputes involving settlement agreements allegedly vitiated by coercion or fraud.

Anil Kapoor And Anr vs National Buildings Construction Corporation And Anr

Delhi High CourtJUDGMENT: May 19, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The Appellants, retired government employees, booked apartments in the ‘NBCC Green View Apartments’ project in 2012 and took possession in late 2017

Source reference: p.3, paras 5-6

In October 2021, IIT Delhi declared the project structurally unsafe

Source reference: p.3, para 7

Consequently, the District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) ordered the evacuation of the project and directed Respondent No. 1 (NBCC) to refund the total consideration with interest

Source reference: p.3, para 7

NBCC initially promised a "Uniform Settlement Policy" but later issued buy-back offers for the principal amount only

Source reference: p.3-4, paras 8-10

Facing financial hardship and cessation of rent payments, the Appellants signed an "Acceptance-cum-Declaration Memorandum" in 2023 for a one-time full settlement and received payment

Source reference: p.5, paras 11-12; p.8-9, para 26

Subsequently, NBCC offered reconstruction and re-allotment to other allottees, which the Appellants claimed was discriminatory

Source reference: p.5, para 13

They filed Writ Petitions seeking parity, which were disposed of by the Single Judge on the grounds that the dispute was contractual and involved disputed facts

Source reference: p.6-7, paras 17-18
02

Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, should adjudicate claims of coercion and fraud regarding a signed settlement memorandum

Source reference: p.8, para 25; p.10, para 31

2. Whether the Appellants, after accepting a full and final settlement, were entitled to challenge a subsequent policy change by the Respondent on grounds of discrimination

Source reference: p.9, para 29; p.10, para 30
03

Law Applied

The court applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the scope of writ jurisdiction, emphasizing that writ courts typically avoid adjudicating "disputed questions of fact"

Source reference: p.6, para 17; p.10, para 31

It referenced the legal principle that a party who executes a full and final settlement cannot resile from its terms unless the agreement is proven to be vitiated by fraud or coercion

Source reference: p.9, para 27; p.10, para 31

Furthermore, for an entity to be held liable under the doctrine of "State" (Article 12), its policy shifts must be examined, but such examination is secondary to the validity of any existing private contractual settlement

Source reference: p.7, para 20; p.9-10, para 30
04

Reasoning

The Court observed that the Appellants had voluntarily executed the Memorandum and received the settlement amount without raising immediate grievances of coercion

Source reference: p.9, paras 26-27

The Appellants only alleged "coercion" after learning that other allottees were offered a more favorable policy of reconstruction and re-allotment

Source reference: p.9, para 29; p.10, para 30

The Court reasoned that the Appellants' challenge to the "Uniform Settlement Policy" was contingent upon first invalidating the Memorandum

Source reference: p.10, para 31

Since the allegations of fraud and coercion are factual in nature and contested by NBCC (who asserted the settlement was of "free will"), they require the leading of evidence for adjudication

Source reference: p.9, para 28; p.10, para 31

Such a fact-intensive inquiry is beyond the scope of Article 226 and is more appropriately suited for a Civil Court

Source reference: p.10, para 31
05

Holding

The Court held that the Appellants cannot challenge subsequent policies while a valid "Full and Final Settlement" exists, unless they prove in a competent Civil Court that the settlement was obtained by fraud or coercion

The Court dismissed the Appeals, holding that the Single Judge committed no error in refusing to exercise writ jurisdiction

Source reference: p.10, para 32

The liberty reserved to the Appellants to seek alternative remedies in law was upheld

Source reference: p.10, para 32

No order as to costs

Source reference: p.10, para 32
Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF

Anil Kapoor And AnrvsNational Buildings Construction Corporation And Anr

Delhi High Court · May 19, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment