Bombay High Court Orders Unconditional Release of MD Amit Gupta After Orris-Godrej Settlement

The dispute between Orris Infrastructure and Godrej Properties over the Godrej Air residential project in Sector 85 Gurugram reached a provisional resolution in late August 2026 when the two companies executed a settlement agreement and the Bombay High Court ordered the immediate release of Orris Infrastructure managing director Amit Gupta from custody.

The underlying project was structured as a partnership through a limited liability partnership in which Godrej Properties held a reported 37.5 percent interest. Godrej Developers and Properties LLP and Orris Infrastructure were the entities involved in the joint development. Differences arose over the management of the LLP’s statutory records maintained with the Registrar of Companies.

The details of Orris-Godrej Air Dispute

According to the complaint that formed the basis of the criminal case Godrej Properties alleged that unauthorised changes were made to those records. The complaint referred to Form 3 and related filings submitted in January 2026. It alleged that Godrej Properties nominated partner was removed from the LLP records without authorisation and that another individual was shown as a partner in that place. The complaint further questioned an alleged attempt to transfer Godrej Properties 37.5 percent interest in the LLP to another entity. The allegations included use of false documents for the filings.

On the basis of this complaint FIR No 0183 of 2026 was registered on 17 March 2026 at Vikhroli Police Station Mumbai. The FIR invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to forgery use of forged documents cheating criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy. In addition to Amit Gupta the FIR named Saurabh Agarwal and an entity referred to as Orris Tower.

Mumbai Police arrested Amit Gupta in Amritsar on or about 17 August 2026 and brought him to Mumbai after obtaining transit remand. He was produced before a local court and remanded to police custody until 27 August 2026. The arrest occurred several months after the FIR registration and related to the allegations concerning the LLP records of the Godrej Air project. Reporting at the time noted that the Mumbai FIR was distinct from other projects associated with Orris including the Greenopolis project in Sector 89 Gurugram and contained no allegations connected to that development.

Orris Infrastructure approached the Bombay High Court by way of Writ Petition (ST) No 17033 of 2026 seeking two primary reliefs quashing of the FIR and related proceedings and the immediate release of Gupta who was then in custody at Vikhroli Police Station. The matter came up before Justice Milind N Jadhav.

On 25 August 2026 the parties informed the court that they had executed a settlement agreement resolving the overall dispute between them. Senior advocate Amit Desai appearing for Orris Infrastructure submitted that the petition contained the two prayers noted above. Senior advocate Abad Ponda appearing for the original complainant Godrej Properties stated that in view of the settlement the complainant had no objection to Gupta’s release.

The court recorded the settlement agreement dated 25 August 2026. Justice Jadhav allowed the petition insofar as it sought Gupta’s immediate release. The order stated that in view of the settlement agreement the remand of Gupta stood quashed and he was directed to be released forthwith unconditionally. The court clarified that there was no requirement of bail or imposition of bail conditions because the prayer for release had been granted on the basis of the settlement.

The second prayer seeking quashing of the FIR was kept pending for further consideration. The court directed that Gupta and all parties remain present on the next date of hearing for the purpose of examining the quashing petition.

Following the order Gupta was released from custody. Orris Infrastructure issued a statement indicating that its business operations and ongoing projects had continued without disruption during the period of the legal proceedings. A company spokesperson said the focus remained on delivering ongoing projects and honouring commitments to homebuyers and partners.

The sequence of events can be summarised from the public record. A partnership LLP was formed for the Godrej Air project in Sector 85 Gurugram with Godrej Properties holding a stated 37.5 percent interest. In January 2026 filings were made with the Registrar of Companies that Godrej Properties later alleged were unauthorised and based on false documents. These filings allegedly removed its nominated partner and raised questions about the transfer of its partnership interest.

An FIR was registered in March 2026 at Vikhroli Police Station. Amit Gupta was arrested in mid August 2026 and remanded to custody. Within approximately eight days of the arrest the parties reached a settlement agreement. On the same day the Bombay High Court ordered his unconditional release while retaining the FIR quashing petition for later consideration.

The case illustrates how commercial disagreements arising inside joint development structures can escalate into criminal complaints when one party alleges alteration of statutory records maintained with the Registrar of Companies. LLP filings under the applicable company law regime are public documents that determine the legal composition of the partnership. Allegations that such records were changed without authority therefore carry direct implications for ownership control and the ability of partners to exercise their rights.

At the same time the rapid movement from arrest to settlement and court directed release demonstrates that parties can resolve the commercial dimension of such disputes even after criminal process has been invoked. The High Court treated the settlement as sufficient basis to terminate custody without requiring bail conditions while leaving the question of whether the FIR itself should be quashed for subsequent determination. That distinction preserves the possibility of further judicial examination of the criminal allegations while removing the immediate restriction on personal liberty that had been imposed through remand.

From a data perspective the record shows a multi month gap between FIR registration in March and the arrest in August a short period of custody measured in days and an immediate judicial response once the settlement was placed on record. The project location Sector 85 Gurugram the reported partnership share of 37.5 percent the specific forms referenced in the complaint and the identity of the police station and FIR number provide a clear factual chain. No public information in the available reports indicates that the settlement resolved every outstanding issue between the companies or that the FIR has been quashed. Those questions remain subject to the further hearing directed by the court.

The episode also highlights the sensitivity of real estate joint ventures to disputes over control of the special purpose vehicles through which projects are executed. When statutory records become the subject of contested filings the resulting uncertainty can affect not only the partners but also the broader project timeline and stakeholder confidence. In this instance the parties elected to settle the commercial conflict and present that settlement to the High Court which in turn used it as the foundation for ordering release from custody.

As of the latest reported position Amit Gupta has been released unconditionally the settlement agreement is on record and the petition for quashing of FIR No 0183 of 2026 remains pending before the Bombay High Court for further consideration. The factual sequence from partnership structure to contested ROC filings FIR registration arrest settlement and court ordered release constitutes the complete publicly documented case.