Civil Procedure – Impleadment of Transferee Pendente Lite – The appellant purchased land during the pendency of a suit for declaration and injunction regarding the same land. The trial court dismissed his application for impleadment, a decision upheld by the High Court based on the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that the doctrine of lis pendens does not render the transfer void but subservient to the rights of the parties in the litigation. The Court emphasized that impleadment is discretionary and necessary to protect the transferee's interests, especially where collusion or failure to defend by the transferor is suspected [Paras 1-22]​​.

Doctrine of Lis Pendens – The Supreme Court clarified that the doctrine does not nullify the transfer but subjects it to the outcome of the pending litigation. The impleadment of a transferee pendente lite is permissible even with notice of the pending suit, as long as it helps protect the transferee's rights and interests [Paras 16-19]​​.

Collusion and Delay – The Court found a substantial delay in the filing of the underlying suit and potential collusion among the original parties, all relatives, which warranted the inclusion of the appellant to ensure a fair trial. The appellant's interest in the property, represented by a registered sale deed, further justified his impleadment [Paras 20-21]​​.

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned orders set aside – Appellant to be impleaded as a party-defendant in the underlying suit [Paras 22-23]​​.

Constitutional Law – Article 131 Jurisdiction – State of West Bengal challenges the authority of the CBI to register cases post-withdrawal of consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act – Issue involves interpretation of Article 131 and its limitations – Supreme Court's original jurisdiction exclusive and includes disputes involving the existence or extent of a legal right [Paras 1-3, 30-31, 44-51, 84].

Legal Framework – Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Order XXVI Rule 6 applicable for rejecting plaints that do not disclose a cause of action or are barred by law – Provisions analogous to Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC – Duty of court to examine averments in plaint as a whole and reject plaints even without defendant's intervention [Paras 22-29].

Maintainability of Suit – Preliminary Objections – Union of India contends suit is barred due to ongoing appeals under Article 136 – Argument that Article 131 suits should not involve private parties or duplicate issues pending elsewhere – Supreme Court rejects these contentions, affirming maintainability of suit for adjudication on merits [Paras 4-14, 32-43, 67, 78-79, 85].

Federalism – Consent Withdrawal and CBI Jurisdiction – West Bengal's consent under Section 6 of DSPE Act withdrawn – CBI's authority to register cases post-withdrawal questioned – Legal implications on federal structure and state's sovereign powers emphasized – Supreme Court examines constitutional framework and legislative intent behind Sections 5 and 6 of the DSPE Act – Reiterates need for central agencies to respect state jurisdiction absent explicit consent or court order [Paras 6-21, 52-66, 68-77].

Interpretation of Article 131 – Legal Rights vs. Political Disputes – Dispute must involve legal rights, not merely political disagreements – Supreme Court distinguishes between genuine federal disputes and political conflicts – Emphasizes that Article 131 intended to address substantial questions impacting legal rights of states versus central government authority [Paras 108-117].

Decision: Preliminary objections dismissed – Suit to proceed on merits – Supreme Court emphasizes necessity to address core constitutional issues regarding federalism and state immunity from central overreach [Paras 84-85].

Order II Rule 2(3) CPC – Leave to Sue Separately – Respondent sought leave under Order II Rule 2(3) CPC for filing a separate suit for recovery of arrears and damages – Trial Court and High Court found no relinquishment or omission in the first suit to bar the second suit – High Court affirmed separate causes of action for the two suits – Appeal dismissed – Court held that the object of Order II Rule 2(3) CPC is to avoid multiplicity of suits and prevent defendants from being vexed twice for the same cause. However, it does not bar suits based on different causes of action, as was the case here. The respondent had specifically reserved its right to claim arrears and damages in the first suit and had taken leave to file a separate suit. [Paras 4-12, 17-18].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by appellant for rejection of respondent’s claim for arrears and damages – High Court found no merit in the application – Distinction between relinquishment and omission of claims under Order II Rule 2 CPC emphasized – Appeal dismissed – Court observed that the appellant’s application for rejection of the plaint was based on a misinterpretation of the principles under Order II Rule 2 CPC. The respondent had neither relinquished its claims nor omitted to claim the reliefs sought in the second suit, thus the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was rightly dismissed by the lower courts [Paras 7, 12].

Leave and License Agreement – Termination and Subsequent Litigation – Original agreement dated 25.11.2008 superseded by another agreement dated 01.12.2010 – Dispute arose due to default in payment of storage charges – Legal notice issued by respondent on 27.11.2014 – Respondent instituted suit for permanent injunction and possession in O.S. No.101 of 2015 – Appellant filed a commercial suit for declaration regarding extent of the warehouse area – Respondent granted leave under Order II Rule 2(3) CPC to file a separate suit for arrears and damages – Multiple suits filed by both parties leading to the present appeal [Paras 4-11].

Commercial Suit – Separate Causes of Action – High Court’s observation that suits were based on different causes of action – First suit related to possession and permanent injunction – Second suit related to recovery of arrears and damages – No relinquishment or omission of claims – Respondent had reserved its right to claim arrears and damages in the first suit and sought leave to file a separate suit – Distinction between causes of action and claims for different reliefs highlighted [Paras 12, 17].

Precedents and Judicial Reasoning – Reliance on Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. ATM Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC Online SC 1614 – Court reiterated that suits for possession and suits for claiming damages for use and occupation are based on different causes of action and can be separately maintained – Application of legal principles regarding Order II Rule 2(3) CPC and Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Affirmation of High Court’s detailed reasoning and dismissal of appellant’s contentions [Paras 16-18].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – The second suit filed by the respondent was maintainable – No infirmity found in the impugned order – Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s view that both suits were based on different causes of action – Pending applications disposed of [Para 19-20].

Adverse Possession – Limitation and Burden of Proof – Appellant-State claimed ownership based on adverse possession since 1958 following the donation of land for constructing a Veterinary Hospital – Trial Court decreed possession in favor of plaintiff due to lack of proof of donation – First Appellate Court reversed, acknowledging adverse possession – High Court restored Trial Court’s judgment, noting the absence of detailed adverse possession claims – Supreme Court found the suit barred by limitation, upholding appellant’s continuous possession as proof of adverse possession and ownership [Paras 1-33].

Vague Pleadings – Rejection of Suit – High Court failed to consider that plaintiff’s vague plaint lacked specific dates and details regarding construction awareness, allowing circumvention of the limitation law – Supreme Court criticized the vague plaint for lacking material particulars necessary for the case [Paras 15-18].

Ownership Presumption – Section 110 of Indian Evidence Act – Burden of proof for ownership lies on the respondent challenging the appellant’s possession – Possession since 1958 indicated ownership, supported by documentary evidence – Plaintiff’s inability to rebut this presumption resulted in the dismissal of the suit [Paras 30-32].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – First Appellate Court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit confirmed [Paras 33-34].

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Defective Vehicle – Compensation in Lieu of Replacement – The High Court quashed the FIR against the respondents for alleged cheating in the sale of a defective BMW car, but directed the replacement of the vehicle with a new one. The Supreme Court, noting the prolonged nature of the dispute and the manufacturer’s compliance willingness, directed a compensation payment instead. It held that the High Court’s direction for vehicle replacement was unjustified once it concluded no cheating was established [Paras 1-15].

Exercise of Article 142 – Compensation Awarded – The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to grant substantial justice by directing the manufacturer to pay Rs 50 lakhs to the complainant, considering the vehicle’s depreciation and the refusal to accept a replacement. The court emphasized the need for practical resolutions to long-pending disputes [Paras 12-14].

High Court’s Order – Quashing Justified, Replacement Unwarranted – While agreeing with the quashing of the proceedings due to insufficient evidence of cheating, the Supreme Court found the High Court’s direction for replacement incongruous and instead settled the matter with a compensation directive [Paras 10-15].

Decision – Appeals Disposed Of – Held – The High Court’s order for quashing the complaint is sustained; however, its direction for replacing the vehicle is set aside. The manufacturer is directed to pay Rs 50 lakhs to the complainant by August 10, 2024. Compliance with this payment will render all claims satisfied [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Appeal against High Court order dismissing revision application against Trial Court’s refusal to discharge – Allegations of harassment and physical abuse by wife leading to husband’s suicide – No proximate link established between alleged conduct and suicide – Essential ingredients of instigation or active role in abetment not proved – Appeal allowed, discharge application granted [Paras 1-15].

Section 306 IPC – Instigation and Abetment – Explanation of essential ingredients of instigation and intentional aid under Section 306 read with Section 107 – Requirement of active role, mens rea, and direct act leading to suicide – No evidence of instigation or active participation by accused wife – High Court order set aside, discharge granted [Paras 7-15].

Marital Dispute and Suicide – Examination of evidence and witness statements – Allegations of physical and mental harassment by wife – Statements from complainant and colleagues of deceased – No substantial evidence supporting the allegations – Arguments by appellant regarding deceased’s alcohol addiction and marital disputes considered – Legal principles reaffirmed [Paras 3-6, 10-13].

Procedural Aspects – Discharge Application – Trial Court and High Court’s rejection of discharge application – Appellate scrutiny of legal standards for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. – Emphasis on absence of prima facie case – Discharge granted [Paras 4, 5, 6].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Impugned High Court order and Trial Court order rejecting discharge application set aside – Discharge application allowed [Para 15].

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Appellant owned land acquired for construction of a flood protection wall – Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 5,61,000 per hectare – Appellant claimed higher compensation of Rs. 500 per sq. ft. – Reference Court enhanced compensation; High Court reversed and ordered refund with interest – Supreme Court held appellant entitled to rental compensation from the date of possession (15.11.1998) to the date of the award (04.08.2000) @ 8% of the enhanced compensation [Paras 1-80] ​​.

Civil Procedure – Entitlement to Rental Compensation – Supreme Court reiterated entitlement based on Government Resolutions – High Court's order directing appellant to refund excess amount withdrawn was set aside – Appellant allowed to withdraw compensation as per enhanced award by Reference Court [Paras 75-80]​​ .

Decision: Appeals allowed in part – High Court’s order set aside – Appellant entitled to rental compensation @ 8% of the enhanced amount from 15.11.1998 to 04.08.2000 – No order as to costs [Paras 81-82] .

Divorce – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Exercise of Article 142 Powers – Appeal by husband challenging the High Court’s order dismissing his divorce petition – Husband and wife lived together for only 43 days in total – Separation period of over 22 years – Continuous legal battles and acrimonious relationship – Supreme Court exercises powers under Article 142 to dissolve marriage, emphasizing that continuation of the legal relationship is unjustified given the complete failure of the marriage [Paras 1-20].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Constitutional Powers – Court refers to precedents where it exercised Article 142 powers to dissolve marriages in similar circumstances – Highlights recent Constitution Bench ruling in Shilpa Shailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan which affirms the Court’s discretion to grant divorce on grounds of irretrievable breakdown even if one spouse opposes [Paras 13, 18-19].

Cruelty and Legal Battles – Husband alleges cruelty due to refusal of marital obligations and initiation of false criminal proceedings by wife – Supreme Court finds that actions and prolonged separation indicate a failed marriage beyond repair – Acknowledges continuous disputes and legal harassment by the wife post-separation [Paras 2-17].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Marriage dissolved under Article 142 – No permanent alimony awarded as both parties are qualified professionals with sufficient earnings – High Court’s order set aside [Para 20].

Criminal Law – Maintenance for Divorced Muslim Women – Appeal challenging reduction of interim maintenance from INR 20,000 to INR 10,000 per month – Appellant argued applicability of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 over CrPC – High Court upheld maintainability of maintenance under CrPC – Supreme Court affirmed, highlighting the continued existence of rights under both statutes, emphasizing the harmonious construction of the laws [Paras 1-41].

Section 125 CrPC vs. 1986 Act – Interpretation and Applicability – Court reiterated that Section 125 CrPC remains applicable to divorced Muslim women – The 1986 Act provides additional and not exclusive remedies – Clarified that rights under CrPC are independent and can be invoked simultaneously [Paras 10-37].

Doctrine of Stare Decisis – Supreme Court bound by previous decisions – Reiterated principles from Danial Latifi and Shamim Bano cases – Upheld that divorced Muslim women are entitled to maintenance under CrPC despite provisions of 1986 Act [Paras 24-37].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court’s order reducing interim maintenance upheld – Appellant allowed to seek state government remission considering mitigating factors and time served [Para 40-41].