This May Have Continued Another Three Decades”: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to End 33-Year Delhi Property Dispute Through Mediation

In a remarkable exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, the Supreme Court of India, on 17th September 2025, invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to conclude a 33-year-old litigation over a prime real estate dispute in Delhi’s upscale Sunder Nagar locality. In the case titled M/s Caravan Commercial Company Ltd. v. Yashashwi Aggarwal & Others, the Court gave its imprimatur to a meticulously crafted Settlement Agreement dated 19.08.2025, thus decreeing specific performance of a suit filed in 1993 and extinguishing all civil and criminal proceedings between the parties, except for one.

Describing the scope of the dispute, the Court noted, "If not settled now, this litigation may perhaps go on for another three decades." With the consent of the parties and the assistance of a court-appointed mediator, Justice Vipin Sanghi (Retd.), the Supreme Court brought finality to what it termed "one of the oldest litigations pending in the High Court of Delhi."

“We Are Told This Is One of the Oldest Litigations in Delhi”: 1993 Suit Decreed, Ownership Transferred for ₹46 Crores

At the heart of the dispute was ownership and possession of two valuable plots—Nos. 42 and 44, Block No. 171, Sunder Nagar, measuring 0.358 acres, originally leased in 1954 to Smt. Shanti Devi, Smt. Pushpa Devi, and Smt. Bimla Devi, each holding an equal one-third share.

Multiple agreements to sell were entered into with the appellant company—Caravan Commercial Company Ltd.—as far back as 1991 and 1992, but due to conflicting claims, overlapping Wills, intergenerational succession, and claims by third parties, the transaction never culminated.

Through this Court-accepted settlement, the parties agreed that "all their rights, title, interests and all the benefits attached thereto" in both plots shall be fully and irrevocably transferred to the Vendee for a total consideration of ₹46,00,00,000/- (Rupees Forty-Six Crores Only).

The Court recorded that "the present Settlement Agreement will also operate as conveyance for transfer of all rights, title and interest of the Vendors in the Suit Property in favour of the Vendee."

“All Disputes Among the Parties Have Been Amicably Resolved”: Supreme Court Grants Decree of Specific Performance

In a significant application of civil procedure and constitutional equity, the Court decreed Civil Suit (CS(OS) No. 2443 of 1993)—pending before the Delhi High Court—in favour of the appellant company under prayers (b) and (c) of the plaint. These pertained to specific performance of the agreement to sell and permanent injunction against the vendors from interfering with the vendee’s title.

The Court observed: "The suits stand decreed with respect to defendant nos. 1 to 7 respectively in terms of the prayers (b) and (c) of the plaint therein."

This was done under Article 142, with the Bench noting that "it is a fit case where this Court should step in to do complete justice between the parties." The Settlement Agreement was directed to be kept on record and treated as a binding decree.

“Litigation Spanning Over Three Decades Finally Concluded”—Court Drops All Related Appeals and Contempt Cases

The Court’s final orders provided for complete termination of all connected proceedings, including:

• Setting aside of Delhi High Court orders dated 08.03.2017

• Dropping of contempt proceedings arising out of Order 39 Rule 2A CPC

• Decree of specific performance in CS(OS) No. 2443/1993

• Disposal of all pending Special Leave Petitions

In para 12 of its judgment, the Bench observed: "With the settlement and the order passed by us today, we have brought to an end a thirty-three-year-old litigation."

The Court further remarked on the importance of dispute resolution through mediation, stating:

"We express our gratitude for the painstaking efforts undertaken by the learned Mediator. We are tempted to observe that the civil suit instituted by Mr. Arun Batra can also be brought to an end..."

“This Court Exercises Its Powers Under Article 142 to Do Complete Justice”: Mediated Settlement Becomes Judicial Decree

The Settlement Agreement, which runs into over 100 pages, covers the transfer of title, possession, mutation, and conversion of the leasehold property to freehold. It also provides for:

• Payment mechanism of ₹46 crores in two tranches—₹23 crores upon handing over possession and execution of documents, and the remaining ₹23 crores upon obtaining L&DO permission, to be held in Escrow.

• Execution of Sale Deeds, POAs, and Wills by all vendors and legal heirs

• Indemnity clauses protecting the Vendee from third-party claims, particularly from Jagdambika Builders Pvt. Ltd.

• Binding undertakings for cooperation in all pending cases and mutation proceedings

• Declaration that no other claim or interest survives in the property

The Court observed: "This settlement, having been arrived at voluntarily and with full legal awareness of its consequences, shall be treated as a judgment and decree in all connected proceedings."

"Parties Have Resolved All Their Disputes Amicably" – Supreme Court Suggests Similar Mediation for Pending Suit by Arun Batra

While the Court disposed of all proceedings between the appellant and the Aggarwal legal heirs, it kept pending the related civil suit CS(OS) No. 1578/1992 filed by Mr. Arun Batra, noting: "The suit shall proceed further in accordance with law on its own merits."

However, the Bench added: "We are tempted to observe that the Civil Suit instituted by Mr. Arun Batra can also be brought to an end... the parties may once again request Mr. Vipin Sanghi, Former Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court, to act as Mediator."

This reflects the Court’s pro-settlement orientation, especially in legacy civil disputes that have consumed public resources for decades.

An Unprecedented Closure of One of Delhi's Longest Running Property Disputes

With this judgment, the Supreme Court has created a landmark precedent on the judicial endorsement of mediated settlements under Article 142. By converting the private settlement into a binding judicial decree, the Court effectively ended litigation that spanned across High Courts, trial courts, and even criminal forums for over three decades.

In the Court’s own words: "We have brought to an end a thirty-three-year-old litigation... one of the oldest pending in the High Court of Delhi."

The case stands as a powerful testament to the efficacy of mediation, the flexibility of Article 142, and the importance of finality in civil disputes.

Date of Decision: 17th September 2025