Registration Act – Assignment of decree – Specific performance – Nature of decree – No interest in immovable property created – Decree only confers a right to seek sale deed execution – Assignment of such decree does not fall under Section 17(1)(e) – Registration not compulsory – Contrary view in K. Bhaskaram overruled – Held: Assignment deed of decree for specific performance does not require registration [Paras 18, 21–22, 26–28, 31–34].

Specific Relief – Assignment of Decree for Specific Performance – Requirement of Registration – Decree for specific performance does not create or assign any interest in immovable property – Assignment of such a decree does not require registration – Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment upheld – Held: Section 17(1)(e) of the Registration Act not applicable to assignment of such a decree [Paras 2, 14, 18, 20, 21, 26, 28, 34].

Civil Procedure – Execution of Decree – Order 21 Rule 16 CPC – Assignment of Decree – Assignment of decree in writing permitted – Assignee entitled to execute the decree as if he were the original decree-holder – No challenge raised regarding notice under Order 21 Rule 16 – Held: Assignment deed (Ex. B1) valid and enforceable – Registration not required [Paras 28, 29].

Property Law – Contract for Sale vs. Sale – Transfer of Property Act – Agreement for sale or decree for specific performance does not create any title or interest – Ownership passes only upon execution and registration of sale deed – Mere decree for specific performance does not confer ownership [Paras 20, 21, 22, 31].

Registration Act – Section 17(1)(e) – Scope and Applicability – Only applies if decree or order itself creates or declares rights, title or interest in immovable property – A decree for specific performance does not do so – Assignment of such decree is not compulsorily registrable [Paras 25, 26, 27, 30].

Legal Nature of Decree for Specific Performance – Decree does not extinguish the contract – Court retains control post-decree – Relief is equitable and does not automatically confer ownership – Execution required to complete sale [Paras 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24].

Case Law Referred – Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal – Suraj Lamp & Industries – Hungerford Investment Trust – Amol v. Deorao – Held: Passing of decree does not vest title – Registration not needed for assigning decree for specific performance [Paras 17, 21, 24, 27].

Incorrect Law Declared – K. Bhaskaram v. Mohammad Moulana – Held: Does not lay down the correct position in law regarding requirement of registration for assignment of decree for specific performance [Para 33].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Decree-holder validly assigned decree to Respondent No.1 – Assignment deed not compulsorily registrable – High Court judgment allowing execution rightly passed – No costs imposed [Paras 34, 35].

Criminal Law – Discharge – Forest Fire Incident – Trekking Tragedy – Appellant, a Forest Officer, arraigned for offences under Sections 304 (Part II), 326, 338 and 304A IPC for deaths and injuries caused to trekkers during Kurangani forest fire – Allegation that appellant permitted trekking and received trekking fees – Trial Court and High Court refused discharge – Held: Deaths occurred due to forest fire, an act of vis major – No criminal intent, knowledge or negligence attributable to appellant – Continuation of prosecution unsustainable [Paras 16–17].

Vis Major – Forest Fire – Criminal Liability – Trekking group engulfed by sudden forest fire caused by natural forces – Held: Forest fire constituted an unforeseeable natural event – Deaths occurred by sheer accident – Criminal liability cannot be fastened on forest officials or organisers in absence of rashness, negligence, intention or knowledge [Paras 10, 16].

IPC Sections 304A and 338 – Rash or Negligent Act – Applicability – Supreme Court in earlier case quashed proceedings against co-accused (organiser) holding no negligence – Held: Same reasoning applies to appellant – Facilitation of trekking or performance of official duties does not amount to rash or negligent act causing death or grievous hurt [Paras 10, 14–16].

IPC Section 304 Part II – Knowledge of Likelihood of Death – Essential Ingredients – Held: No material to show appellant acted with knowledge that his act was likely to cause death – Forest fire not attributable to any act of appellant – Section 304 Part II wholly inapplicable [Para 16].

IPC Section 326 – Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt by Dangerous Means – Held: Provision applies only where grievous hurt is voluntarily caused by weapons, fire or other dangerous means – Injuries and deaths in present case caused by forest fire and smoke inhalation, not by any voluntary act of appellant – Section 326 wrongly invoked [Para 16].

Discharge – Section 227 CrPC – Standard of Evaluation – Where basic ingredients of alleged offences are absent on admitted facts – Courts ought to discharge accused instead of compelling trial merely on basis of official position – Held: Sessions Court and High Court erred in refusing discharge [Paras 16–17].

Parity with Co-Accused – Effect of Earlier Supreme Court Judgment – Proceedings against co-accused organiser quashed on ground that forest fire was vis major – Held: Reasoning squarely applicable to appellant – Prosecution cannot distinguish appellant merely by invoking graver sections without factual foundation [Paras 14–16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of High Court dated 03.06.2025 and Sessions Court dated 28.10.2024 set aside – Appellant discharged from all offences – Criminal proceedings in S.C. No. 70 of 2019 quashed qua appellant – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 17–19].

Civil Law – Vakalatnama – No Instruction Pursis – Not Withdrawal – Counsel for defendant filed pursis claiming no instructions without formally withdrawing Vakalatnama – Trial Court decreed suit without issuing notice to litigant – Appellate Court held that absence of clear withdrawal or proof of non-service of RPAD notice cannot be grounds for remand – High Court erred in accepting pursis as withdrawal and remanding suit [Paras 7, 23-26].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Scope and Limitations – High Court interfered with well-reasoned appellate court order based on procedural misinterpretation – Held: Article 227 jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely to substitute one plausible view for another – Interference unwarranted unless jurisdictional error or failure of justice is established [Paras 22-26].

Evidence – Defendant's Conduct – Absence of Effort to Engage Counsel – Defendant did not deny receipt of counsel’s letter nor attempted to contest suit after pursis filed – Appellate Court held defendants cannot benefit from own negligence – High Court’s remand disregarded factual findings of Appellate Court [Paras 5-8, 14-23].

Practice and Procedure – Withdrawal of Counsel – Requirement of Notice – Civil Manual Clause 660(4) and Bombay HC Rules require 7 days' prior notice and court’s leave for withdrawal – However, such formalities do not apply where Vakalatnama is not withdrawn and litigant fails to act despite communication – Held: Trial Court was justified in proceeding with decree [Paras 10-13, 23-26].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s remand order set aside – Order of Trial Court decreeing suit, as affirmed by Appellate Court, restored – Writ Petition dismissed [Paras 24-25].

Arbitration – Post-Award Interest – Commercial Loan Recovery – Arbitral award granting 24% interest upheld – Borrower (appellant) challenged arbitral award on ground of usurious and unconscionable interest – Arbitrator’s discretion in granting 24% post-award interest found valid – Held: Arbitrator has discretion to award post-award interest under Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Statutory rate of 18% applies only in absence of specific direction in award – Challenge under Section 34 rightly rejected; re-appreciation of evidence not permissible – Appeal dismissed [Paras 11, 31, 36-39, 42, 44-46, 56-57].

Arbitration Act, 1996 – Section 31(7)(b) – Post-award interest – Scope and interpretation – Discretion of arbitrator not controlled by contract – Clause (b) does not allow parties to “contract out” post-award interest – Arbitrator may fix rate, and if not fixed, statutory rate of 18% applies – Public policy ground under Section 34(2)(b) narrowly construed – Award of 24% post-award interest in commercial transaction not against public policy [Paras 33-39, 49-53].

Loan Transaction – High-Interest Commercial Loan – NBFC charging 24% interest on loan extended to defaulting borrower – Loan used to settle pre-existing debt – Rate justified due to high risk – Contention that agreement was signed on blank documents found untenable – Arbitrator and High Court concurrently found interest clause genuine – No merit in claim under Usurious Loans Act, 1918 – NBFCs not governed by State interest control statutes [Paras 5, 7, 25-27, 45, 54-55].

Arbitration – Section 34 and Section 37 – Limited scope of judicial interference – Courts below rightly refused to set aside award – Findings on facts including interest rate and validity of loan agreements cannot be re-examined – Error in law or high interest rate alone not grounds for interference – Concurrent findings of arbitrator and High Court upheld [Paras 12, 15, 29, 46].

Insolvency Proceedings – Non-payment of arbitral award led to initiation of CIRP under IBC – No resolution plan received – Liquidation followed – Recovery through liquidation much below awarded sum – Justifies award of interest and supports lender’s right to enforce full claim [Paras 13-14, 48].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Arbitral award upheld – Interest at 24% per annum confirmed – No interference warranted under Sections 34 or 37 of the Act – No violation of public policy or fundamental principles of Indian law found [Paras 56-57].

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Parity with Similar Landowners – Appellants’ lands acquired for setting up MIDC Jintur in the 1990s – Compensation originally fixed at ₹32,000 per Acre – Reference Court enhanced it but High Court reversed enhancement – Supreme Court held appellants similarly situated to those in Manohar v. State of Maharashtra – Held: Compensation enhanced to ₹58,320 per Acre with statutory benefits [Paras 4-14, 16(iv)-(v)]

Comparable Sale Instances – Deduction for Small Plots – Reference Court had rightly considered ten sale exemplars from Jintur town – Court upheld 20% deduction from highest exemplar rate (₹72,900/Acre) – Held: Enhanced rate ₹58,320 per Acre applicable to appellants – Location near highway and N.A. potentiality validated by documentary evidence [Paras 10-13]

Non-Agricultural Potential – Evidence of Proximity – Land found near Nashik–Nirmal State Highway, adjacent to Jintur town, with irrigation and water sources – Claims of remoteness by MIDC rejected – Held: High Court erred in reversing Reference Court's award [Paras 10-12]

Delay in Appeal – Interest Denied for Delay Period – Though appeal allowed, interest on enhanced compensation not granted for period of delay in filing SLPs as per earlier notice orders [Paras 15-16(v)]

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court and Reference Court judgments set aside – Compensation enhanced – Statutory benefits under Land Acquisition Act to follow – Interest denied for delay period [Paras 16(i)-(v)]

Environmental Law – Ex post facto Environmental Clearance – Review Allowed – The Supreme Court recalled its earlier judgment in Vanashakti v. Union of India dated 16.05.2025 which had declared the 2017 Notification and 2021 Office Memorandum ultra vires – Court held that the earlier ruling failed to consider binding precedents (D. Swamy, Pahwa Plastics, Alembic, Electrosteel Steels) and took a narrow view inconsistent with environmental jurisprudence – Further, Court noted that indiscriminate demolition of thousands of projects undertaken in public interest, including hospitals and public housing, would cause greater ecological damage and economic loss – Held: Ex post facto EC may be granted subject to stringent environmental safeguards and penalties as contemplated under the 2017 Notification and 2021 OM [Paras 114–127, 141–142].

Public Interest – Demolition vs Environmental Protection – Balancing Approach – Court held that the Vanashakti judgment would have led to indiscriminate demolition of completed and near-complete infrastructure projects, including those sanctioned by public bodies – Relying on judgments in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Pankaj Babulal Kotecha and Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda, Court emphasized that post facto regularisation with safeguards may, in certain circumstances, better serve the environment and public interest than demolition and reconstruction – Held: A rigid approach risks economic waste and increased pollution [Paras 123–126, 128–140].

Environmental Jurisprudence – Doctrine of Per Incuriam – Vanashakti held per incuriam – Earlier judgment failed to consider binding coordinate Bench rulings in D. Swamy and Pahwa Plastics, which upheld the validity of the 2017 Notification and 2021 OM – Supreme Court reaffirmed that coordinate Benches must follow binding precedent or refer to a larger Bench – Held: Vanashakti judgment disregarded this principle and was liable to be recalled [Paras 121–122].

Judicial Discipline – Article 141 – Coordinate Bench Conflict – Court reiterated that if a two-Judge Bench disagrees with an earlier two-Judge Bench decision, it must refer the matter to a larger Bench – The Vanashakti judgment violated this principle by departing from binding precedents without reference – Held: Error on the face of the record warranting recall under review jurisdiction [Para 122].

Environmental Law – Ex post facto EC – Dissent – Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dissented, holding that the concept of ex post facto EC is alien to environmental jurisprudence and contrary to precautionary principle – Dismissed the review plea, stating that economic loss or administrative hardship cannot override the statutory requirement of prior EC – Held: 2006 EIA Notification mandates prior EC, and post facto clearances cannot be legitimised under guise of public interest [Dissenting Opinion, Paras 1–43].

Decision: Review Petition Allowed – Judgment dated 16.05.2025 in Vanashakti v. Union of India recalled – Writ petitions and appeals restored to file for fresh consideration – Matter to be placed before Chief Justice of India for further orders on administrative side.

CRIMINAL LAW – SECTION 482 CrPC – QUASHING – ABUSE OF PROCESS – SECOND COMPLAINT ON SAME FACTS – Held: Filing a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC by the same informant against the same accused regarding the same occurrence, after a negative final report had already been submitted and accepted by the court, amounts to a gross abuse of the process of law. The complainant cannot improve their case or bypass the earlier negative report merely by adding a new offence (Section 308 IPC) or invoking a private complaint after a significant delay (2.5 years) without having filed a protest petition against the original negative report. – Proceedings quashed.

CRIMINAL LAW – SECTION 154 & 200 CrPC – MAINTAINABILITY OF SECOND FIR/COMPLAINT – TEST OF SAMENESS – Held: Relying on Surender Kaushik & Ors. v. State of U.P., the Court reiterated that while rival versions of the same incident may justify a second FIR, a second complaint by the same complainant against the same accused for the same incident is prohibited. The concept of "sameness" bars a subsequent complaint intended to improve upon the facts of the original complaint. The ratio in Surender Kaushik actually supports the quashing of such vexatious proceedings where the spectrum of allegations remains identical.

CRIMINAL LAW – DOUBLE JEOPARDY – LIBERTY OF ACCUSED – Held: Where accused persons were named in the initial FIR but dropped from the investigation (negative report), dragging them into a second complaint for the same occurrence implicates the liberty of the person and raises questions of double jeopardy.

Decision: Appeal allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. Proceedings pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate qua the appellants are quashed.

Criminal Law – Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Summoning of Additional Accused – Defence Pleas – Petitioner named in FIR but exonerated by Investigating Officers in multiple reports; subsequently summoned by Trial Court – Held: Contentions regarding false implication and police reports constitute defence pleas – Petitioner is at liberty to raise all such contentions during the course of trial at the appropriate stage – The observations in the impugned orders are limited to the purpose of summoning and shall not prejudice the trial. [Paras 2, 7-8, 11].

Criminal Procedure – Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) – Evasion of Trial vs. Pursuing Legal Remedies – Trial Court issued NBWs for non-appearance while petitioner was approaching High Court and Supreme Court – Held: When a petitioner is pursuing remedies before higher forums, non-appearance before the Trial Court cannot be termed as deliberate or an attempt to evade trial – Summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. implies custodial interrogation is not required – No purpose is served by keeping the petitioner in judicial custody during a protracted trial – NBWs ordered to be kept in abeyance; petitioner directed to surrender within two weeks and be admitted to bail. [Paras 9-12].

Decision: Petition disposed of. Non-bailable warrants kept in abeyance. Petitioner directed to surrender within two weeks and furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. [Paras 12-13].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Colour – Appellant, a former Director of lessee company, was implicated in FIR under Sections 406 and 420 IPC for alleged non-payment of rent and unauthorised retention of leased premises – Supreme Court held that the dispute arose from breach of lease agreement and had been subject to arbitration, where an award was already passed – Held: Continuation of criminal proceedings in such context, especially after resignation of appellant, amounts to abuse of process – FIR quashed [Paras 1–11, 16–17].

Arbitration – Precedence over Criminal Proceedings – Lessor invoked arbitration clause and obtained award directing company to vacate premises and pay arrears – Appellant had already resigned prior to award – Court held that once arbitration remedy is invoked and dispute is civil in nature, resort to criminal prosecution is impermissible in absence of clear intent to deceive from inception [Paras 7–11, 16–17].

Director Liability – Post-Resignation Proceedings – Appellant had resigned as Director prior to arbitral award and execution proceedings – No evidence of personal enrichment or involvement in continued possession of premises – Held: Criminal proceedings cannot be sustained against former Director where no active role shown post-resignation [Paras 10–11, 15–17].

Misuse of Criminal Law – Allegations without Mens Rea – Complaint filed after arbitral award and after restitution of possession – FIR filed without making company a party – No specific allegation of dishonest intention at inception or post-resignation conduct – Held: Absence of mens rea and lack of material against appellant justify quashing under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 8–11, 15–17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – FIR/Crime No. 514 of 2017 dated 07.12.2017 against the appellant quashed – Criminal proceedings held to be an abuse of process – No offence made out under Sections 406 or 420 IPC.