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].

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 – 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].

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.

Tender Disqualification – Grounds and Validity – Appellant disqualified from tender participation by the Board of Trustees of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority based on termination of a Concession Agreement by the Visakhapatnam Port Authority – High Court upheld disqualification – Appellant contended termination was retaliatory and pending arbitration – Supreme Court disposed of appeals with a broad consensus – Termination not to disqualify appellant from future tenders – Procedural fairness in disqualification processes emphasized [Paras 1-8].

Arbitration and Contractual Disputes – Pending Proceedings – Termination of Concession Agreement under arbitration – Supreme Court noted pending arbitral proceedings and agreed termination should not affect tender eligibility until resolved – Highlighted need for independent resolution of disputes without affecting unrelated tender qualifications [Paras 4-7].

Withdrawal of Writ Petition – Liberty to Challenge – Appellant withdrew writ petition challenging RFQ clause with liberty to refile – Court noted withdrawal does not influence future legal challenges – Emphasized importance of preserving legal rights to contest potentially unfair contractual terms [Paras 4.2, 9].

Decision: Civil Appeal No. 5878 of 2022 disposed of – Writ Petition No. 569 of 2022 dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to challenge validity of Clause 2.2.8 of RFQ documents in the High Court – Termination of Concession Agreement by Visakhapatnam Port Authority not to disqualify appellant from participating in future tenders by public authorities.

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].

Excise Law – Refund of Duty – Returned Goods – Section 173L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – For refund of excise duty under Section 173L, the value of returned goods must be considered as the market value of the excisable goods and not the ex-duty or raw material value – Supreme Court held that the Department correctly determined the value of the returned goods at Rs. 8 to 10 per kg, treating them as scrap – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-6].

Valuation – Market Value vs. Raw Material Value – Court emphasized that the statutory provision mandates considering the market value of returned goods – Submission that returned goods should be treated as raw material for valuation was rejected – Value must reflect market conditions and defects in returned goods [Paras 4-4.1].

Principles of Natural Justice – Market Survey Report – No Violation – Court found no breach of principles of natural justice in the non-supply of the market survey report to the assessee – Assessee neither requested the report nor raised the issue before the Tribunal – Such grievances cannot be raised for the first time before the High Court [Paras 3, 5].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court's judgment and lower authorities' findings on the value of returned goods upheld – Denial of refund in accordance with Section 173L (v) confirmed [Para 6].

Constitutional Law – Compassionate Appointment – Articles 14 and 15 – Appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be extended to heirs of employees upon retirement or superannuation – Allowing such appointments would deny opportunities to outsiders who may be more meritorious or qualified – Court held that such appointments would be violative of Article 14 and Article 15 of the Constitution – Judgment and awards directing appointments to heirs of retired employees set aside [Paras 1-10].

Compassionate Grounds – Definition and Limits – Court emphasized that compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal recruitment process, intended to help families of employees who die in harness – Such appointments must consider the financial position and dependence of the family – Extending this to heirs of retired employees would defeat the purpose of compassionate appointments [Paras 3-8].

Industrial Disputes – Modification of Award – Historical Context – Judgment and award from 1981, which provided employment to heirs of retiring employees, was modified in 2005 to limit compassionate appointments to heirs of deceased employees only – Court reiterated that the modified scheme governs the appointments, not the original 1981 award [Paras 2, 6].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment and Industrial Court's awards quashed – Directions for compassionate appointments to heirs of retired employees set aside [Para 10].

Land Acquisition – Procedural Compliance – The acquisition of land for constructing grade separators and other structures was challenged on the grounds of non-compliance with procedural requirements under Rule 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003 – Supreme Court held that non-filing of a statement by the Highways Department in response to landowner objections does not vitiate the acquisition process – Rule 5(2) is procedural and not mandatory – Purpose is to provide Highways Department an opportunity to respond to objections, not a compulsory step [Paras 5.1-6].

Subordinate Legislation – Consistency with Parent Act – High Court's view that Rule 5(2) is inconsistent with Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, was unnecessary – Supreme Court held Rule 5 is not inconsistent with the parent Act – Procedural rules are meant to ensure fair hearing and response but are not grounds to invalidate the acquisition if substantially complied with [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Special Leave Petitions dismissed – Substantial compliance with procedural requirements found – Acquisition upheld.