In Brief
Kaushaliya and others, who claimed rights under an alleged Agreement to Sell, objected to a Settlement Agreement that had been approved by the Supreme Court. They sought to prevent execution of the settled order concerning certain properties. The Supreme Court held that the objectors had no legal standing to challenge the Settlement, having neither filed a specific performance suit nor obtained any final judgment in their favour. The Court affirmed that a Settlement Agreement approved by it is binding and executable regardless of whether the properties were originally in dispute, and that the Executing Court must comply with and enforce the order faithfully."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.