Section 13(2), 13(4), 14, 17(4A), 18 and 35 of the of the SARFAESI Act - SARFAESI Proceedings – Tenant’s Rights and Restoration of Possession – Unregistered Lease – Appeal Allowed - The appellant, a secured creditor, took possession of a secured asset under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act following borrower’s default – Respondent claimed tenancy under unregistered lease from 1987 – High Court restored possession to respondent citing tenancy rights under rent laws – Held: High Court erred in entertaining challenge under Article 227 of Constitution despite availability of statutory remedy under Section 18 SARFAESI; tenancy claims must be adjudicated by DRT as per amended Section 17(4A) – Appeal allowed, possession retained by secured creditor pending DRT decision [Paras 11-13, 26].

Tenant Claims – Requirement of Documentary Evidence – Protection Limited for Unregistered Lease – The respondent failed to produce rent receipts, tax records, or electricity bills prior to issuance of demand notice under Section 13(2) SARFAESI Act – Reference to tenancy in sale deed or attornment letter insufficient without corroborative evidence – Citing Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal v. Central Bank of India, held unregistered tenancy not protected beyond one year from notice under SARFAESI – Mandatory order restoring possession unjustified – Appeal allowed [Paras 23-25].

High Court Jurisdiction – Alternate Remedy and Misapplication of Pre-Amendment Law – Error Noted – The High Court misapplied the ratio of Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. International Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd., which was based on pre-2016 SARFAESI Act and did not consider introduction of Section 17(4A) post-amendment – SARFAESI provides complete statutory remedy, writ jurisdiction not to be invoked – Appeal rightly entertained and allowed [Paras 11-13].

Non-Obstante Clause in SARFAESI – Applicability over Rent Control Act – Clarified – Following Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal, Court reiterated non-obstante clause under Section 35 SARFAESI overrides inconsistent tenancy claims unless validly established – Precedents in Vishal N. Kalsaria and V. Dhanapal Chettiar limited to legally protected tenancies and do not protect unregistered undocumented occupation in secured assets recovery proceedings [Paras 17-19, 23].

Conduct of Respondent – Delay in Asserting Rights – No Equitable Relief – Respondent failed to contest symbolic possession despite newspaper notice in 2021, approached DRT only after physical possession in 2023 – Collusive litigation with borrower not ruled out – Absence of proactive assertion of rights bars relief under equitable jurisdiction – Appeal allowed, possession retained by secured creditor [Paras 24-25].

Decision of the Case – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s direction restoring possession set aside – Status quo maintained with secured creditor till DRT adjudication within two months – No costs awarded [Paras 26-27].

Civil Law – Fresh Suit  – Res Judicata – Section 11 CPC – Relief Barred – Earlier findings upheld - The plaintiff’s challenge based on coercion and misrepresentation regarding the execution of Power of Attorney and subsequent sale deeds was earlier rejected by three courts – The issue now raised was identical and held barred by res judicata under Section 11 CPC – Held: Liberty granted by High Court in second appeal did not revive adjudicated claims or create new cause of action [Paras 5-6, 9-10].

Limitation – Fresh Suit Filed Based on Liberty Reserved – Claim Time-Barred – Agreements Executed in 1998 - The second suit filed by plaintiff for declaration and possession was barred by limitation, as the cause of action dated back to the execution of agreements in 1998 – The liberty granted in second appeal cannot override statutory limitation periods – Held: No application of Section 14 of Limitation Act; suit not before wrong forum but improperly framed [Paras 7, 10].

Civil Procedure – Order 23 CPC – Leave to File Fresh Suit – No Immunity from Limitation – Order 23 Rule 1 and Rule 2 CPC Considered - Though liberty to file a comprehensive suit was granted, it does not extend to revive barred or decided claims – The High Court rightly observed that Order 23 CPC does not exempt parties from adhering to limitation laws [Para 7].

Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Suit Deficient – Important Stakeholders Not Impleaded – Belgaum Urban Development Authority and Badminton Association were necessary parties to the dispute concerning civic amenities and property layout – Held: Suit rightly found defective for non-joinder [Para 11].

Final Decision – Special Leave Petition Dismissed – Findings of High Court Affirmed – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s view that the second suit was barred by limitation and res judicata and that liberty granted earlier did not override legal bars – Held: No interference warranted – SLP dismissed [Paras 10, 12].

Cheque Dishonour – Liability under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Quashing of Complaint Set Aside – The High Court had quashed the complaint filed by the appellant on grounds of non-issuance of statutory notice to the partnership firm and failure to arraign the firm as an accused – Supreme Court held that under Section 141 of the Act, a firm is merely a compendious expression for its partners, who are personally, jointly, and severally liable for its acts – Held: Complaint maintainable even without arraigning the firm as accused or serving statutory notice to the firm, provided partners are issued notice and made parties – Permission granted to implead partnership firm as an accused – Impugned order quashing complaint set aside and matter restored to trial court for disposal on merits [Paras 2-12].

Company vs. Partnership Firm – Distinction in Liability – Partnership Firm Not a Separate Juristic Entity – Unlike a company which enjoys distinct legal personality and creates vicarious liability for directors, a partnership firm lacks separate legal existence from its partners – Held: Partners of a firm are personally liable and bound by joint and several liability for actions done in the firm’s name – Notice to partners equals notice to firm – Omission to implead firm is curable and does not invalidate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act [Paras 6.1-7.24].

Interpretation of Section 141 – Legal Fiction of ‘Company’ includes Firm – The term ‘company’ under Section 141 includes a partnership firm by legal fiction – Held: While in company matters directors can be liable vicariously, in partnership the partners are directly, jointly, and severally liable along with the firm – Even absent arraignment of firm as accused, complaint can proceed against partners under joint liability principle – Distinction in treatment of firms and companies upheld to prevent misuse of Section 141 by rigid procedural technicalities [Paras 9.1-9.11].

Decision – Complaint Restored – High Court Judgment Reversed – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Madras High Court which had quashed the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, permitted the appellant to implead the partnership firm as an accused, restored the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate and directed disposal in accordance with law [Paras 10-12].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Quashing - Criminal Conspiracy and Cheating – Prima Facie Offence Established – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Set Aside – Appellant, a daughter deprived of share in ancestral property, alleged fraudulent exclusion from compensation awarded on land acquisition – High Court quashed criminal proceedings based on Sub-Registrar’s statement and pending civil suit – Supreme Court held prima facie case exists under Sections 120B, 415, 420 IPC – Held: Quashing unjustified; fraudulent family tree and partition deed used to siphon public compensation warrants criminal trial [Paras 2-18].

Bar of Civil Suit – No Bar on Criminal Prosecution – Distinct Remedies – Supreme Court reiterated that pendency of civil suits for partition and declaration does not preclude criminal proceedings – Referring to K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S. and Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, Court clarified that civil and criminal remedies are coextensive and prosecution is maintainable where criminal intent is alleged – Held: Coexistence of civil proceedings does not shield accused from criminal liability when ingredients of cheating and criminal conspiracy are satisfied [Paras 19-23].

Fraudulent Family Tree and Partition Deed – Material Disputes Require Trial – High Court erred in relying solely on Sub-Registrar’s untested statements – Supreme Court observed that fabrication of family tree excluding daughters and forged partition deed involving huge compensation amount are serious allegations needing thorough trial – Held: Genuineness of documents cannot be concluded in writ jurisdiction; criminal prosecution to proceed [Paras 17-18].

Decision – Criminal Proceedings Restored – Appeal Allowed – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside High Court order quashing proceedings, and directed continuation of criminal trial against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as per law – Emphasized necessity of trial for adjudication of serious allegations involving property rights and criminal misconduct [Paras 24-25].

Civil Law - Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope of Rejection of Plaint – Rejection of Plaint on Ground of Res Judicata Set Aside – The appellant challenged the orders of the Trial Court and High Court which allowed rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground of res judicata due to an earlier ex parte decree – Supreme Court held that adjudication on res judicata involves an analysis of previous pleadings, judgments, and facts which cannot be undertaken merely on averments in an Order VII Rule 11 application – Held: Res judicata must be decided at trial, particularly when fraud and collusion are alleged, and plaint contains specific pleadings regarding invalidity of earlier decree – Appeal allowed, suit restored [Paras 3-12].

Fraud Allegations – Collusive Ex Parte Decree – Prima Facie Bar of Res Judicata Inapplicable – Appellant pleaded fraud and collusion in obtaining ex parte decree in prior partition suit, alleged suppression of material facts during purchase of property – Supreme Court held that whether prior decree binds appellant requires detailed inquiry into facts and circumstances, and such issues cannot be summarily decided at preliminary stage – Held: Fraud allegations require trial stage determination, not rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 4-10].

Res Judicata – Principles Clarified – Examination at Trial Stage Required – Referring to Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors. and Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood, Supreme Court reiterated that res judicata can only be decided upon full appreciation of prior proceedings, pleadings, and judgments, not solely on plaint averments – Held: Courts below erred in rejecting plaint without trial; appeal allowed and suit restored [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Rejection of Plaint Set Aside – Suit Restored – Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Trial Court and High Court, restored the suit to original number and directed expeditious disposal considering pendency since 2009 – Clarified no opinion on merits; all defences including res judicata to remain open for trial determination [Paras 13-15].

Matrimonial Law - Admissibility of Secretly Recorded Conversations – Balance between Right to Fair Trial and Privacy – Section 122 of Indian Evidence Act – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the husband challenging the High Court’s decision disallowing the admission of secretly recorded conversations in a matrimonial proceeding – Held: Spousal communications recorded during marriage are admissible under the exception provided in Section 122 of the Evidence Act where litigation is between spouses – Privacy rights under Article 21 cannot override the right to fair trial in matrimonial disputes – The order of the Family Court allowing such evidence was restored [Paras 8-13].

Spousal Privilege – Exception in Divorce Proceedings – Section 122 of the Evidence Act – Privilege Not Absolute – The Court clarified that Section 122 establishes privilege over spousal communications but expressly carves out an exception in cases of proceedings between spouses – Disclosure of such communications in divorce proceedings is permissible without the consent of the other spouse – High Court’s reasoning invoking privilege was incorrect [Paras 8.1-10.1].

Right to Privacy – Constitutional Scope – Article 21 – Privacy Cannot Override Statutory Exceptions – The Court held that privacy between spouses is protected under common law principles but is subject to statutory exceptions under Section 122 – In matrimonial disputes, privacy does not prevent relevant evidence from being introduced, ensuring balance with the right to fair trial – Constitutional privacy protections are not absolute in private disputes between spouses [Paras 11-12].

Electronic Evidence – Admissibility of Audio Recordings – Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act – Admissibility Upheld with Safeguards – Secretly recorded spousal communications are admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, subject to authentication and compliance with Section 65B certification requirements – The Family Court was correct in accepting electronic evidence including CDs, transcripts, and memory cards [Paras 9.5-10.6].

Precedence of Fair Trial – Balancing Competing Rights – Doctrine of Proportionality Applied – The Court applied the doctrine of proportionality, concluding that in matrimonial disputes, admitting evidence like secret recordings is essential to enable a fair adjudication of claims of cruelty or other matrimonial offences, without disregarding legitimate privacy concerns, which are protected by procedural safeguards such as in-camera proceedings [Paras 10.3-12.6].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Family Court Order Restored – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned High Court judgment and restored the Family Court’s order allowing the appellant-husband to submit the supplementary affidavit and electronic recordings in divorce proceedings – Directed the Family Court to consider the evidence in accordance with law – Appeal disposed of with no order as to costs [Para 13].

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 376 IPC – Exception in Peculiar Circumstances – Continuation Unnecessary – The appeals arose from refusal by High Court to quash criminal cases including Section 376 IPC despite mutual settlement – Supreme Court noted second FIR (376 IPC) was lodged immediately after first FIR by opposite side and complainant categorically expressed no intention to pursue case – Held: Though ordinarily Section 376 IPC cases are not quashed on settlement, facts justified exercise of inherent powers to prevent abuse of process [Paras 3, 5-8].

Settlement After Serious Allegations – Consent of Complainant Considered – Complainant affirmed before Court, through affidavit, that she is settled post-marriage and further prosecution would disrupt personal life – Supreme Court recognized the voluntary, consistent, and unambiguous stand of complainant to withdraw from prosecution as a decisive factor – Held: Court's powers under Section 482 CrPC remain flexible to secure ends of justice in special facts [Paras 5-8].

Second FIR Lodged as Retaliation – Contextual Consideration – The second FIR, containing graver charges, followed a first FIR filed against complainant’s side alleging assault – Supreme Court inferred possible retaliatory motive and concluded continued trial would cause harassment without achieving justice – All proceedings quashed [Paras 3, 7-9].

Final Relief – Quashing Allowed – Supreme Court quashed both FIR No. 302/2023 and FIR No. 304/2023, including Sessions Case No. 29/2024 – High Court’s order refusing quashment set aside – Reaffirmed that inherent powers should be exercised prudently to prevent misuse of criminal law machinery [Paras 9].

Environmental Law - Environmental Clearance – Challenge to NOC for Petrol Pump – Compliance with Siting Guidelines – Appeal Dismissed - The appellants challenged the grant of NOC and consent to operate for a petrol pump alleging violation of environmental norms and proximity to residential areas – The Joint Committee constituted by NGT found no violation of Central Pollution Control Board Guidelines or presence of designated residential areas, schools, or hospitals within 50 meters – NGT dismissed the application, and the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal holding that the approvals were lawfully granted in compliance with environmental norms [Paras 2-9].

Parallel Proceedings – Suppression of Material Facts – Filing of Simultaneous Writ Petition – Civil Appeal Dismissed with Exemplary Costs - The appellants initiated parallel proceedings by filing a writ petition in the High Court challenging the same NOC on grounds already raised before the NGT and in civil appeals before the Supreme Court – The Supreme Court held that the appellants suppressed filing of the writ petition, lacked bona fides, and the litigation was intended to serve the personal business interests of appellant no. 3 – Civil appeals dismissed with costs of ₹50,000/- imposed [Paras 11-21].

Scope of NGT Jurisdiction – Petroleum Rules Not Within NGT Schedule – Limited Scope of Tribunal – Correctly Rejected by NGT - The Supreme Court affirmed that matters related to the Petroleum Rules, 2002, do not fall within the scheduled enactments under the NGT Act, hence the Tribunal correctly declined to examine such issues, focusing solely on environmental criteria [Paras 9, 14, 21].

Pending Writ Petition – Liberty to Proceed Independently – No Prejudice from Dismissal of Civil Appeals - While dismissing the civil appeals, the Supreme Court clarified that the writ petition concerning violations of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 pending before the High Court will proceed independently, uninfluenced by this judgment [Para 21(b)].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Conviction under Section 138 – Presumption Properly Raised – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant challenged the High Court's reversal of acquittal and conviction under Section 138 NI Act, arguing that foundational facts were not proved and no presumption under Sections 118 and 139 should have been raised – Held: Respondent had proved foundational facts and appellant failed to rebut presumption – High Court rightly convicted appellant – No interference called for [Paras 5–9].

Compensation – Quantum of Fine – No Double Recovery – The appellant argued that compensation awarded was disproportionate as the respondent was granted the entire cheque amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in addition to a fine – Held: Fine imposed was Rs.10,10,000/- out of which Rs.10,00,000/- was to be paid as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) CrPC – There was no separate or excess compensation – Argument rejected [Paras 10–14].

Fine and Sentence – Justified in Facts – The Court held that the imposition of fine equivalent to the cheque amount was in consonance with the law laid down in R. Vijayan v. Baby, (2012) 1 SCC 260 – There was no illegality or excessiveness in sentencing – No reduction warranted [Paras 11–14].

Time to Pay Fine – Three Months Granted – On request of counsel for the appellant, the Court granted three months’ time to deposit the fine amount – In default, appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for six months – Amount to be paid to respondent upon deposit [Paras 15–16].

Decision – Appeal dismissed with modification regarding time to pay – Held: Conviction under Section 138 NI Act upheld – Appellant granted three months to deposit cheque amount; default will attract simple imprisonment for six months [Paras 14–16].