#memorandum of understanding

Bombay HC Division Bench grants Section 9 injunction to doctor-investors, barring land alienation to protect specific performance claim after 21-year developer default on delivery and IOD, reversing Single Judge's denial. The decision underscores Section 9's role in preventing arbitration frustration where prolonged inaction threatens the subject matter.

The Supreme Court held that arbitration clauses in a Joint Venture Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding remain operative despite a separate Licence Agreement, affirming the doctrine of independent arbitration agreements. It clarified Section 11(6-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and appointed the former Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court as the sole arbitrator, impacting parties to intertwined commercial contracts.

Bombay HC grants interim protection under Section 9, directing deposit of Rs.2,14,99,523 with 18% interest and asset disclosure within seven days. Court relies on repeated MOU admissions of liability and dishonoured security cheques, preserving prima facie case for secured creditor.

Bombay High Court quashes FIR under Sections 406, 420, and forgery-related IPC offences after parties settle via Memorandum of Understanding, reinforcing that compoundable offences can be resolved extra-judicially under BNSS. The court also imposed Rs. 75,000 costs on each party, signaling judicial encouragement for amicable dispute resolution in private criminal complaints.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that a Memorandum of Understanding lacking a No Objection Certificate from the Collector and formal registration cannot create any vested interest in government land for redevelopment, even if partial payment has been made. This clarifies that mere intent to enter a future development agreement does not equate to enforceable contractual rights under the Arbitration Act, impacting developers and housing societies relying on informal arrangements.

Himachal Pradesh High Court rules that Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) under resettlement schemes confer legally binding employment rights on displaced families, extending protections to non-landowners. The court directs the Deputy Commissioner to adjudicate claims within 12 weeks, reinforcing state accountability in rehabilitation policies.

ITAT Mumbai rules that for capital gains computation under Section 50C, the stamp duty value as on the date of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) applies, not the registration date, if procedural delays cause the transfer. This holding impacts taxpayers facing delays in property transfers, ensuring fair valuation for tax purposes.

The Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff seeking specific performance must disclose all material agreements, including hidden loan arrangements, to satisfy the 'clean hands' doctrine. Failure to reveal a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) showing the transaction as a loan-security deal rather than a genuine sale agreement disentitles the plaintiff from equitable relief under contract law.

Bombay High Court condones 60-day delay in filing caveats where heirs settled disputes via MOU, affirming that procedural flexibility serves substantive justice in testamentary matters.