Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appeal – In absence of concrete evidence, conviction is unsustainable – Appellants were convicted for the murder of Rupak Kumar Gogoi, Managing Director of the company where they were employed – Prosecution relied on eyewitness testimonies which did not conclusively prove that the appellants caused any injury or instigated the laborers to commit the crime – Supreme Court found that the appellants were present as union office bearers and there was no evidence of their participation in the crime – Conviction under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC found unsustainable – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-6].

Concrete Evidence – Requirement for Conviction – Court emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence to sustain a conviction – Mere presence at the crime scene or holding a position of authority does not establish guilt without evidence of direct involvement or instigation – Appellants acquitted due to lack of such evidence [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentencing of appellants set aside – Appellants acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Para 7].

Criminal Law – Dishonestly Receiving Stolen Property – Appeal – Conviction under Section 411 IPC requires proof that the accused had knowledge or reason to believe that the property was stolen – Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to establish that the appellant had such knowledge – Conviction based solely on the possession of stolen goods and selling them at a lower price is insufficient without proving the essential element of mens rea – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-25].

Essential Ingredients – Section 411 IPC – For a conviction under Section 411 IPC, it must be proved that (1) the stolen property was in the possession of the accused, (2) the property was previously in someone else's possession, and (3) the accused knew or believed the property to be stolen – The prosecution failed to meet these criteria in this case [Paras 21-22].

Disclosure Statements – Insufficient Evidence – The Court noted that the disclosure statement of one accused cannot prove another accused's knowledge of the stolen nature of the goods – Concrete evidence is required to establish such knowledge – Prosecution's evidence found unreliable due to discrepancies [Paras 11-20, 23].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentencing of appellant under Section 411 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Para 25].

Civil Procedure – Ex Parte Decree – Appeal – Appellant can challenge an ex parte decree on the grounds that the trial court's decision to proceed ex parte was unjustified – If the appellant did not file an application under Rule 13 of Order IX of CPC, they can still argue on the basis of the trial court's records that the suit summons was not served or that proceeding ex parte was incorrect – Under Section 105 of CPC, errors affecting the decision of the case can be set forth as grounds of objection in the appeal [Paras 1-8].

Service of Summons – Legality and Verification – Trial court's failure to verify the address before proceeding ex parte – Summons returned unserved with remarks "Intimation Delivered" – Court must ensure proper service as per Rule 17 of Order V of CPC – Without such verification, proceeding ex parte was unwarranted [Paras 9-10].

Remand of Suit – Given that a multi-storeyed building was constructed on the suit property and premises occupied by different persons, the suit requires reconsideration – Suit remanded to the trial court with conditions [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – High Court's judgment dated 22nd March 2016 and City Civil Court's decree dated 19th September 2015 set aside – Original Suit No. 6610 of 2014 restored for fresh adjudication – Costs of Rs. 2,00,000/- imposed on the appellant as a condition precedent for the suit remand – Appellant to file written statement within one month from 26th September 2022 – Trial court to prioritize disposal of the suit [Paras 11-13].

Insolvency Law – Priority of Tax Claims – The State is a secured creditor under the GVAT Act – Section 48 of the GVAT Act provides for a first charge on the property of the dealer for tax dues – Supreme Court held that Section 48 is not contrary to or inconsistent with Section 53 of the IBC – Section 53(1)(b)(ii) of the IBC includes debts owed to a secured creditor, which includes the State under the GVAT Act – Resolution Plan must address statutory demands payable to the State – Adjudicating Authority must reject plans that ignore such statutory dues [Paras 1-59].

Secured Creditor – Definition and Application – Section 3(30) of the IBC defines a secured creditor to include a creditor with a security interest created by operation of law – The definition does not exclude any Government or Governmental Authority – Supreme Court affirmed that the State under the GVAT Act qualifies as a secured creditor [Paras 27-30].

Resolution Plan – Statutory Compliance – A Resolution Plan must conform to the requirements under Section 30(2) of the IBC, including addressing statutory dues – Adjudicating Authority must ensure compliance before approval – NCLAT erred in holding that Section 53 of the IBC overrides Section 48 of the GVAT Act [Paras 41-55].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Impugned orders set aside – Resolution Plan approved by the CoC set aside – Resolution Professional to consider a fresh Resolution Plan addressing statutory dues – No order as to costs [Paras 59-60].

Civil Procedure – Mesne Profits – Lease Determination – Appellant liable to pay damages for use and occupation at the rate the landlord could have let out the premises post-lease expiry – Under Section 2(12) CPC, the tenant's liability for damages is based on the rate at which the landlord could have rented out the premises upon tenant's vacating – Court must determine whether the tenant could lawfully sublet the premises to derive higher profit – Supreme Court held that tenant at sufferance cannot transfer interest after lease expiry [Paras 1-5].

Transfer of Property – Tenant at Sufferance – Lease Expiry – Once the lease ends, the tenant becomes a tenant at sufferance and loses right or interest in the property – Even though under Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act a tenant might transfer interest during the lease, post-expiry they cannot lawfully sublet or transfer the premises [Paras 6-10].

Decision – Appeals allowed in part – High Court's modification of the Single Judge's decree affirmed – Appellant liable for mesne profits as determined – Directions issued for calculating and paying the damages accordingly [Paras 11-12].

Municipal Law – Possession and Permanent Injunction – Town Planning Scheme – Land reserved for public park under the sanctioned Town Planning Scheme vested in the Municipal Committee – Plaintiff sought permanent injunction alleging possession – Courts held possession of land was already taken over by Municipality and developed as a public park – Supreme Court held plaintiff not entitled to permanent injunction – Scheme not challenged by plaintiff and deemed lapse not sought – Appeals allowed, permanent injunction set aside [Paras 1-11].

Contempt Proceedings – Status Quo Order – Context and Violation – Order of status quo regarding possession interpreted in context – Municipality’s development of land as a public park after possession does not violate status quo order – Contempt proceedings closed [Para 10].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment in Regular Second Appeal No. 115/1994 quashed – Trial Court's decree of permanent injunction set aside – First Appellate Court's judgment restored – Original suit dismissed – Contempt proceedings disposed of [Para 11].

Insolvency Law – CIRP Against Corporate Guarantor – Liability of Guarantor – CIRP can be initiated against the Corporate Guarantor without first proceeding against the principal borrower – Liability of the guarantor is co-extensive with that of the principal borrower – Supreme Court held that the guarantor metamorphoses into a debtor or corporate debtor if the principal borrower defaults in payment – Judgment in Laxmi Pat Surana v. Union Bank of India and Another (2021) 8 SCC 481 affirmed – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-18].

Corporate Guarantor – Definition and Scope – Court interpreted the definitions under Section 3(7), 3(8), and 5(5A) of the IBC to include corporate persons offering guarantees for loans taken by non-corporate borrowers – Legislative intent does not exclude such guarantors from CIRP provisions [Paras 12-15].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) and the Appellate Authority (NCLAT) upheld – No interference warranted [Paras 17-18].

Benami Transactions – Determination of Ownership – Section 4(3)(a) of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 – Court considered the elements necessary to establish benami ownership, including the source of purchase money, possession of the property, and intention behind the transaction – Supreme Court found that the properties were purchased by the plaintiff with his funds, and his sons, being minors, had no source of income – The plaintiff's possession and management of the property were corroborated by tenant testimonies – Appeal allowed, and the suit decreed in favor of the plaintiff [Paras 1-30].

Burden of Proof – Benami Transactions – It is well established that the burden of proving a transaction as benami lies on the person alleging it – The essence of a benami transaction is the intention behind it, which must be proved by concrete evidence rather than conjectures or surmises – Court emphasized the need for the claimant to provide substantial proof of their assertion [Paras 21-23].

Concurrent Findings – Scope of Interference – Jurisdiction under Article 136 – The Court rarely interferes with concurrent findings unless there is a manifest error of law or fact leading to a miscarriage of justice – In this case, the concurrent findings were found to be erroneous based on the evidence presented [Paras 27-28].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court and lower court judgments set aside – Suit decreed in favor of the plaintiff – No order as to costs [Para 30].

Criminal Law – Discharge of Accused – High Court discharged respondents accused of possessing assets disproportionate to their known sources of income under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Supreme Court found High Court erred in applying legal principles, particularly in the burden of proof and scope of inquiry at the stage of framing charges – Held, burden to satisfactorily account for disproportionate assets lies on the accused once prosecution establishes prima facie case – Discharge orders set aside [Paras 1-16, 18-31, 32-33].

Burden of Proof – Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act – Accused required to account for assets disproportionate to known sources of income – Burden shifts to accused to satisfactorily explain once prosecution shows prima facie disproportion – High Court incorrectly demanded prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt at charge framing stage – Emphasis on preponderance of probabilities for the accused's explanation [Paras 34-41, 43-46].

Income Tax Returns – Evidentiary Value – Income tax returns not conclusive proof of lawful income – High Court erred in considering income tax returns as exculpatory without trial – Court emphasized need for evaluating all evidence, including IT returns, during trial – High Court's reliance on IT returns at discharge stage inappropriate [Para 46].

Scope of Inquiry at Charge Framing Stage – Inquiry at charge framing stage limited to prima facie case assessment – Detailed examination of defense evidence not warranted – High Court's detailed consideration of accused's defense evidence at this stage was incorrect – Supreme Court reiterated limited scope for charge framing [Paras 22-24, 50-51].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court orders discharging the respondents set aside – Matter remanded for trial – Emphasized proper application of legal standards at charge framing stage and correct burden of proof under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.