Hindu Marriage – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Divorce Granted under Article 142 – Decree of Divorce Passed – Appellant-wife’s petition under Section 13 HMA was dismissed while respondent-husband’s Section 9 petition was allowed – Despite opposition, Supreme Court dissolved the marriage exercising Article 142 due to prolonged separation of over 12 years, failure of reconciliation, and complete loss of marital bond – Held: No viable future for marriage, decree of divorce necessary to allow parties and their daughter to move forward [Paras 2–5, 9–13].

Article 142 – Complete Justice – Divorce Without Consent – Judicial Discretion Invoked – Court found that despite husband’s opposition, prolonged estrangement and absence of cohabitation or communication between parties and between father and daughter justified exercise of Article 142 – Reference made to Constitution Bench ruling in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan to affirm Court’s power to grant divorce on grounds not available under statute [Paras 9, 12–13].

Child Welfare – Adult Daughter’s Wishes Considered – No Hindrance to Divorce – Daughter of parties, now an MBBS student, interacted with Court virtually – Found mature and independent – Her views reinforced that continued marital tie between parties served no purpose – Court rejected husband's claim that divorce would harm child’s future [Paras 7–10].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Marriage dissolved by decree of divorce on ground of irretrievable breakdown – No alimony claimed or awarded – Decree directed to be drawn accordingly [Paras 13–15].

Election Law – Scheduled Caste Status – Proof of Caste and Religion – Election Validated – High Court’s finding that the appellant was not a Hindu Parayan of Kerala and had converted to Christianity was held unsustainable – Supreme Court found appellant’s ancestors were settled in Travancore prior to 1950, fulfilling residency requirement under Presidential Order – Allegations of conversion not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Certificate issued by competent authority presumed valid and not effectively challenged [Paras 28–36, 50–52, 58].

Evidence Law – Burden of Proof – Election Petitions – High Standard Required – Reiterated that an election petitioner must prove disqualification allegations beyond reasonable doubt – Respondent failed to prove fraudulent issuance or invalidity of caste certificate – Adverse inferences based on insufficient or untested documents like baptism registers rejected – Witness testimony deemed unreliable due to contradictions and inconsistencies [Paras 7, 32–34, 36–37, 57–58].

Kerala Act – Scope of Section 10 – Election Petitions Not Covered – Held that the burden of proof under Section 10 of the Kerala (SC/ST) Act applies only to proceedings under that Act – Election petitions not included in “any trial” under Section 10 – Detailed analysis of legislative context, applying principles of noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis – Community certificate challenges to follow statutory scheme, not election law [Paras 39–45].

Precedent – Sub-silentio Doctrine – Limits of Earlier Case Law – Court held paragraph 11 of Sobha Hymavathi Devi was rendered sub-silentio for failing to analyze the relevant statutory provisions – Reiterated that binding precedent requires detailed reasoning on legal point in issue [Paras 46–49].

Relief – Election Restored – Certificate Not Determinative in Election Petition – Held that without legislative provision allowing caste certificate challenges in election petitions, such validity must be decided under relevant community certificate laws – Reinstated appellant’s election and dismissed petition [Paras 59–64].
 

Civil Law - Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Judgment on Admission – Power to Dismiss Suit – Invocation Justified – Partition suit dismissed by learned Single Judge under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on admitted pleadings and documents without need for trial – Held: Court has discretion to dismiss the suit if admission in pleadings negates cause of action – Power under Order XII Rule 6 includes dismissal based on clear and unambiguous admissions – Earlier declaratory decrees and lack of pleading on HUF formation justified such dismissal [Paras 36–37].

Partition Suit – Effect of Prior Declaratory Decrees – Binding Nature – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant’s claim over Barota and Anand Niketan properties barred by earlier declaratory decrees passed in four suits, which were never challenged – Held: Appellant was bound by said judgments that recognised Late Gen. Budh Singh as absolute owner, and property partitioned inter se family members – Appellant estopped from disputing title in current suit [Paras 38–44].

HUF and Coparcenary – Lack of Specific Pleadings – No Presumption in Law – Suit Not Maintainable – Appellant failed to plead creation of HUF, date of formation, or specific acts of throwing property into common hotchpotch – Mere reference to ancestral nature of property held insufficient – Courts rightly held that absence of material facts rendered claim unsustainable [Paras 27–28, 39].

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 6 Amendment – Inapplicability to Partition Pre-2004 – Retroactive Claim Rejected – Argument that daughters had coparcenary rights under amended Section 6 rejected – Held: Four prior suits amounted to formal and consensual partition prior to 20 December 2004 – Appellant could not rely on retroactive application of Section 6 due to valid prior partition [Paras 45].

Property Title – Anand Niketan Property – Barred by Limitation – Sub-Lease Deed Unchallenged – House at C-38, Anand Niketan transferred to Anup Singh via sub-lease deed in 1970 – Appellant failed to challenge deed for 37 years – Held: Challenge time-barred under Article 59 of Limitation Act; property not proved as HUF asset [Paras 46–48].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Courts below correctly dismissed the partition suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC based on admitted documents and previous binding decrees – No error in legal findings or procedure – Appellant estopped and barred from reopening title [Paras 49–50].

Civil Appeal – Execution Proceedings – Scope of Order 21 Rule 102 CPC – Appeal Allowed – The appellant, a bona fide purchaser of property from a third party (Rizvi Estate), challenged the Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) order dated 25/07/2022 that had closed the enquiry under Order XXI Rules 97 and 101 CPC by applying Rule 102 CPC – Supreme Court held that Rule 102 bars only transferees from the judgment-debtor pendente lite, not those deriving title independently – High Court’s order set aside, Executing Court directed to continue enquiry – Sections 97–102 CPC read with Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act applied [Paras 13-17].

Execution of Decree – Obstruction by Transferee – Scope of Order XXI Rule 102 CPC – Appeal Allowed – High Court erred in holding appellant barred as transferee pendente lite – Appellant purchased property from a third party (Rizvi Estate), not from judgment-debtor – Held: Rule 102 bars only transferees from judgment-debtor pendente lite; appellant entitled to raise objections under Rules 97 and 101 CPC – Executing Court to proceed with enquiry [Paras 13-16].

Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Applicability – Limited to Transfers by Judgment-Debtor – Court reiterated that lis pendens under Section 52 TPA binds transferees from judgment-debtor, not bona fide purchasers from third parties not party to suit – Appellant’s purchase validly outside bar of Rule 102 CPC [Paras 12-15].

Delay and Mala Fides in Application – Respondent’s belated attempt after a decade – Application Ext. D-100 filed in 2019 to close enquiry was held mala fide and untenable – Executing Court rightly dismissed; High Court wrongly interfered [Paras 14(a)-(b)].

Right of Bona Fide Purchaser – Appellant’s Title Independent of Judgment-Debtor – He purchased in 2007 from true owner’s successor, Rizvi Estate – Not a transferee pendente lite of Maliks (judgment-debtor) – Therefore eligible to invoke Rules 97–101 CPC [Para 15].

Principle of Finality of Litigation – Rule 102 CPC aims to prevent abuse by judgment-debtors’ transferees – But equitable bar does not extend to outsiders with independent title – Court emphasised balancing decree-holder’s rights with bona fide purchaser’s right to contest collusive decrees [Paras 9-11, 14(c)].

Decision – Civil Appeal allowed – High Court order dated 25/07/2022 set aside – Executing Court directed to continue and conclude enquiry under Order XXI Rules 97–101 CPC uninfluenced by Supreme Court’s observations [Paras 16-17].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Conviction for Dishonour of Cheque – Offence Compounded – Appellant convicted by trial court and acquitted by First Appellate Court on ground that complainant was an unlicensed money lender under Goa Act – High Court reversed acquittal and restored conviction – Held: Since appellant paid full cheque amount (Rs. 2,00,000) and compensation (Rs. 30,000), and considering the overlooked defence under the Goa Act, Supreme Court compounded the offence and acquitted appellant in exercise of powers under Article 142 [Paras 4–10].

Money Lending Without License – Goa Money-Lenders Act – Valid Defence – High Court’s Failure to Consider – Conviction Set Aside – Appellate Court had acquitted on basis of complainant’s illegal money lending activity – High Court failed to consider applicability of Goa Act which precluded prosecution – Held: Judgment of High Court unsustainable due to non-consideration of statutory defence under the Goa Act [Paras 5, 8].

Article 142 of Constitution – Power to Do Complete Justice – Invoked to Compound Offence – In light of full repayment and interests of justice, Supreme Court exercised extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to compound offence and conclude litigation finally [Paras 9–10].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Offence under Section 138 NI Act compounded – Accused-appellant acquitted – Amount of Rs. 2,30,000 to be paid to complainant if not already done [Paras 10–11].
 

Arbitration Law  – Validity of Discharge Vouchers – Accord and Satisfaction – Arbitrability Affirmed – The appellant-insured accepted a discharge voucher under financial duress after a prolonged delay in claim settlement – Despite receipt of Rs. 1.88 crores under the Fire Declaration Policy, appellant claimed balance Rs. 3.83 crores and invoked arbitration – Held: The acceptance of a discharge voucher does not per se bar arbitration if coercion or economic duress is alleged – Arbitration clause survives the alleged settlement – Plea of duress need not be conclusively proved at Section 11 stage; arbitral tribunal to decide validity of accord [Paras 24–28, 35–38, 41].

Insurance Claim – Arbitrable Dispute – Full and Final Settlement Not a Bar – High Court Order Set Aside – High Court erred in refusing appointment of arbitrator on ground that appellant accepted compensation without demur – Supreme Court clarified that mere execution of full and final settlement voucher does not extinguish arbitration rights where coercion or inadequate consideration is pleaded – Arbitrable dispute exists [Paras 32–34, 41].

Arbitration Law – Doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz – Section 11(6) Scope – Minimal Judicial Interference – Once arbitration agreement exists, tribunal has jurisdiction to decide all disputes including existence/validity of discharge settlement – Courts must adopt “when in doubt, do refer” principle – Reiterated primacy of party autonomy and minimal judicial interference under amended Arbitration Act [Paras 36–40].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Order of Bombay High Court rejecting Section 11 applications set aside – Sole arbitrator appointed to resolve dispute – Arbitration directed to proceed before Justice (Retd.) Suresh Chandrakant Gupte [Paras 42–44].
 

Criminal Law - Section 319 CrPC – Scope and Threshold – Prima-facie Evidence – Invocation Justified – Appellant challenged High Court's quashing of Trial Court order summoning Respondent No. 2 based on direct eyewitness testimony during trial – Held: Once sworn evidence implicates an individual not initially arraigned, and such evidence is stronger than mere suspicion, the court is empowered to summon under Section 319 CrPC – Alibi materials were untested and did not negate the direct testimony – Power under Section 319 is an extraordinary measure but is triggered when such evidence surfaces during trial [Paras 8–11, 13, 15].

Abetment to Suicide – Role of Psychological Provocation – Taunts by Accused – The deceased was confronted and shamed by Respondent No. 2 in the aftermath of a prior acid attack, leading to suicide – Such statements, especially in the social context of honour and shame, were held to be sufficient prima facie evidence to justify trial under Section 306 IPC – Confrontation and its psychological aftermath constitute proximate cause and meet the standard for abetment [Paras 3.2–3.3, 10, 14].

Alibi Defence – Burden of Proof – Not Conclusive at Summoning Stage – Respondent’s reliance on CCTV, medical records, and parking slips were not formally proved or tested through cross-examination – Court held that alibi is a matter of defence to be adjudicated at trial – Pre-trial reliance on untested alibi amounts to pre-judgment and impairs the prosecution’s case [Paras 11–12, 15].

Section 482 CrPC – High Court Interference – Improper Use of Inherent Powers – High Court’s reliance on police investigation and alibi materials to quash Trial Court’s summoning order held premature – Such intervention effectively foreclosed a full trial and was inconsistent with statutory framework – Summoning under Section 319 CrPC reinstated [Paras 13–15, 17].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s judgment dated 21 November 2023 set aside – Trial Court’s order dated 04 July 2022 summoning Respondent No. 2 revived – Respondent directed to appear before Trial Court within four weeks [Paras 16–17].
 

Electricity Tariff – Additional Capitalization – Replacement of Damaged ICTs – Disallowed - Appellant claimed capitalization for ICTs replaced after fire damage, arguing such replacements were essential for operational efficiency – Held: Such replacements form part of regular maintenance and do not qualify as ‘additional works/services’ under Regulation 53(2)(iv) – No additional benefit accrued to beneficiaries – Capitalization rightly denied [Paras 29-31].

Tariff Regulations – Interpretation of Regulation 53 – Replacement Costs and Original Scope – Strict Construction – Regulation 53 intended for new/additional work not mere replacements – Replacement of failed transformers not admissible as additional capitalization unless part of original project scope or satisfying conditions under Regulation 53 – Tribunal’s interpretation upheld [Paras 27-30].

Self-Insurance Policy – Coverage for Machinery Breakdown and Fire – Loss Recoverable – Held: Fire caused by machinery failure was proximate cause of transformer damage – Loss covered under internal self-insurance policy maintained by appellant – Financing through insurance reserve justified – Tribunal’s direction to use internal fund sustained [Paras 33-37].

Availability Certificate – Consequential Relief – Denied - Since additional capitalization was disallowed, claim for revised availability certificate also becomes untenable – No relief can be granted on a claim consequential to a rejected claim [Para 38].

Final Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Supreme Court held that the Appellate Tribunal’s reasoning was sound and based on statutory interpretation and facts – No grounds for interference – Appeals devoid of merit and dismissed without costs [Paras 39-40].
 

Motor Accident Claim – Insurer’s Liability – Death of Coolie in Trailer Pulled by Insured Tractor – Liability Fastened – Deceased was riding on a trailer attached to an insured tractor when the accident occurred due to negligent driving – Held: Though the trailer was not separately insured, the tractor’s role as the proximate and root cause of the accident justified fastening liability on the insurer – MV Act is welfare legislation; coverage extends to accidents caused through attached trailers if arising from tractor operation [Paras 10-12].

Separate Insurance for Trailer – Not Mandatory in Attached Vehicle Accidents – Distinction Drawn – Held: When the trailer is attached to and forms part of the insured tractor during the accident, separate insurance for trailer is not required – Insurance policy for tractor covers liability arising from such integrated operation – Reliance on Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision in Koduru Bhagyamma affirmed [Para 14].

Insurance Policy Limits – Liability Not Beyond Contract – Compensation Payable Limited to Policy Terms – Held: Insurance company cannot be held liable for compensation exceeding the limits prescribed by the insurance policy or law – However, insurer to pay full awarded amount with liberty to recover excess from owner [Paras 15-18].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s order enhancing compensation and fastening liability on insurer – Liberty granted to insurer to recover differential amount from owner of vehicle – Appeal dismissed with no costs [Paras 19-20].