Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 30-07-2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: M/S GMT Building Solutions LLP; Respondent: Shilpi Shrivastava.
  • Case numbers: CONMT.PET.(C) No. 621/2025, CONMT.PET.(C) No. 725/2024, MA 858‑859/2021, Crl.A. No. 85‑86/2021; IA No. 65031/2026 – Exemption from filing O.T.
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vipul M. Pancholi.
  • Counsel for petitioner included Dr. Aditya Sondhi (Sr. Adv.), Shivesh Kaushik, Abhiraj Ray, Aamir Abbas Naqvi, Devika Dhawan, Nikhil Beniwal (AOR), Ashima Mandla (AOR), Mandakini Singh, Hima Bhardwaj, Sristhi Agarwal, Vinayak Sharma.
  • The Court’s earlier order dated 04.03.2025 was based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 31.12.2024, which the respondent personally affirmed as a voluntary, coercion‑free settlement.
  • The MoU provided for a full and final settlement of all disputes, with undertakings that no further civil or criminal proceedings would be initiated.
  • The settlement amount of ₹5.34 crores was recorded as paid to the respondent, and all claims were declared closed.
  • On 03.03.2025, the respondent handed over ten original cheques and undertook, on behalf of herself and her mother, not to pursue any legal action concerning those cheques.
  • Contradictorily, the respondent lodged a police complaint on 01.03.2025 alleging coercion and blackmail related to the return of those cheques and the underlying property transaction.
  • The complaint led to FIR No. 561/2025 dated 18.04.2025, which references the return of the cheques on 03.03.2025 and receipt of the ₹5.34 crore settlement on 04.03.2025.
  • A legal notice dated 30.04.2025 sought withholding of ₹88 lakhs (plus interest) from the consideration payable for the property transaction that facilitated the settlement.
  • The Court observed that the respondent’s conduct—suppressing the coercion allegation while obtaining a settlement order and subsequently reviving the dispute through criminal proceedings—constitutes contempt, not a mere technical lapse.
  • The defence that the alleged loan involved the respondent’s mother and third parties (Amit Dewan/Swati Singhal) does not negate the respondent’s own contradictory actions.
  • The Court concluded that the respondent deliberately attempted to defeat the finality of the Court‑recorded settlement.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the respondent wilfully disobeyed the order dated 04.03.2025 and is in contempt.
  • As a lady respondent, the Court extended a single opportunity to purge the contempt; the method of purging is left to her discretion.
  • A three‑week period is granted for purging the contempt.
  • The respondent is required to appear for listing on 20.08.2026.

Topics: Contempt, Settlement Dispute, Civil Litigation